Update on St. Louis County Council Mtg RE: special class for gender identity/sexual preference

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lisa Pannett <lzpannett@yahoo.com>
To: Lisa Pannett <lzpannett@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 9:31 AM
Subject: St. Louis County Council Mtg

Dear Friends,

Last week the St. Louis County Council went forward with their homosexuality agenda.  This bill 279 is slated for final passage next Tuesday.  They are expanding an anti discrimination bill that would now say you cannot discriminate based on sexual preference and/or identity.  I gave two examples last week on how they would used this against private schools and businesses.  This week I will add another scenario, public restrooms.  A man could not be told to leave a women's restroom or changing facility for pools, etc.  Think of the children exposed to this kind of nonsense.  

I sent out the alarm last week and 25 people showed up for the meeting.  2 people showed up for the passage of this bill.  This made a difference.  Of the seven people on the board, two are now with us and we have been told verbally a third is with us.  This means we need one more vote with us.  I said last week and I will continue to say, if we fill that room with 160 people we will get another to turn their vote.  However, 25 people is not going to do this.  25 people for all of St. Louis County in a room is not enough to make a statement.  

If YOU do not show up, the homosexuality agenda will move forward in our city.  There is not a group of people that will take your place.  We will decide as Godly people in our city, who is willing to move out of our comfort zones.  This meeting is at 41 South Central Avenue in Clayton.  There is parking available in a lot directly across the street.  The meeting is at 6 but we need everyone there by 5:30 to sign in to speak against this.  

In addition to showing up please contact your county council people in your district to speak out against this.  You go to the St. Louis County Government website to find out who is your representative based on where you live.  We need many calls to Steve Stenger at 314-615-5442 or 615-0159 and Erby 314-615-5436 or 314-615-5386.  

I pray that each one of you receiving this would hear the urgency in my words.  We NEED YOU!!

God Bless!

Lisa Pannett

--

Ruth (Carlson) Reynolds

Eagle Forum

Of: 314-721-1213

www.eagleforum.org

www.facebook.com/eagle.forum

Follow on Twitter

Befriend Ruth on Facebook

Eagle Forum's Mission is to enable conservative and pro-family men and women to participate in the process of self-government and public policy making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise.

Federal Court: Hobby Lobby must violate its faith and pay for abortion-pills. Becket Fund Appeals

Today, a federal court denied a request to halt enforcement of the abortion pill mandate which forces the Christian-owned-and-operated Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., to providethe "morning after pill" and "week after pill" in their health insurance plan, or face crippling fines up to $1.3 million dollars per day.

http://www.becketfund.org/federal-court-hobby-lobby-must-violate-its-faith-and-pay-for-abortion-pills/

Federal Court: Hobby Lobby must violate its faith and pay for abortion-pills

Becket Fund Appeals

For Immediate Release: November 19, 2012
Media Contact: Emily Hardman, ehardman@becketfund.org, 202.349.7224

WASHINGTON, DC – [On Nov. 19], a federal court denied a request to halt enforcement of the abortion pill mandate which forces the Christian-owned-and-operated Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., to providethe "morning after pill" and "week after pill" in their health insurance plan, or face crippling fines up to $1.3 million dollars per day.

"We disagree with this decision and we will immediately appeal it," says Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs. The Green family needs relief now and we will seek it immediately from the federal appeals court in Denver."

The court did not question that the Green family has sincere religious beliefs forbidding them from participating in abortion. The court ruled, however, that those beliefs were only "indirectly" burdened by the mandate's requirement that they provide free coverage for specific, abortion-inducing drugs in Hobby Lobby's self-funded insurance plan.

Founded in an Oklahoma City garage in 1972, the Green family has grown Hobby Lobby from one 300-square-foot retail space into more than 500 stores in 41 states. "It is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured," said David Green, Founder and CEO. "Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles."

Hobby Lobby is the largest and first non-Catholic-owned business to file a lawsuit against the HHS mandate. The Green family has no moral objection to the use of preventive contraceptives and will continue covering preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family's religious convictions prohibit them from providing or paying for the abortion-inducing drugs, the "morning after" and "week after" pills, which would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception.

The business's lawsuit acts to preserve its right to carry out its mission free from government coercion.

There are now 40 separate lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate, which is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). The Becket Fund led the charge against the unconstitutional HHS mandate, and along with Hobby Lobby represents: Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network, and Ave Maria University.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. For 18 years its attorneys have been recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. The Becket Fund recently won a 9-0 victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, which The Wall Street Journal called one of "the most important religious liberty cases in a half century."

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Emily Hardman, Communications Director, at ehardman@becketfund.org or call 202.349.7224.

Additional Information:

Legal Documents:

·     Judge Joe Heaton Opinion (November 19, 2012)

·     Becket Fund's Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction (October 29, 2012)

·     DOJ Responds to Hobby Lobby's Request for Preliminary Injunction (October 22, 2012)

·     Request for Preliminary Injunction (September 12, 2012)

·     Complaint (September 12, 2012)

Hobby Lobby Resources:

·     Hobby Lobby Fact Sheet

·     Hobby Lobby Case Page (images, background, legal docs, press releases, news coverage and more)

·     HHS Information Central (all 38 HHS mandate cases, legal documents, resources, and interactive map)

Previous Press Releases:

·     Hobby Lobby: Government Can't Strip Business Owners of Religious Liberty (October 29, 2012)

·     Hobby Lobby responds to DOJ brief against religious freedom (October 24, 2012)

·     · Hobby Lobby Sues Over HHS Mandate (September 12, 2012)

o  David Green's Press Statement (September 12, 2012)

o  Recording of Press Call (September 12, 2012, 11:30am EST with David Green and Kyle Duncan)

STL County Council Meeting TUE @ 3:00 p.m. RE: expanding discrimination clauses to include gender identity & sexual orientation

I'm curious about what this pertains to; if it's just regarding housing or if this means even bathrooms can't discrimination. Here are two videos run in Ancrange, AK when there was a proposition there on this. Note: I can't find specific language at this point to know exactly what the Council is considering. The agenda language is like a black wall and I can't find BILL NO. 279, 2012 by searching the county site.


This is what's on the agenda:

BILL NO. 279, 2012, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS DOLAN AND BURKETT, ENTITLED:

AN ORDINANCE

AMENDING SLCRO 1974 AS AMENDED BY REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 107.146, 202.270, 717.010, 717.020, 717.030, 717.040, 717.050, 717.056, 718.020, 722.040 AND 722.050 PERTAINING TO DISCRIMINATION BY COUNTY CONTRACTORS OR IN CONNECTION WITH HOUSING OR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS OR COUNTY EMPLOYMENT OR HATE CRIMES.

This is from the County Council Journal Notes from 11-13-12

ADD ONS
Item No. 1 – 5th District

Ms. Genevieve M. Frank, Administrative Director, submitted the Communication directed to Patricia Redington, St. Louis County Counselor, from The Honorable Patrick M. Dolan, Councilman for the 5th District, requesting legislation be prepared for introduction with regard to insuring the prohibition of discrimination against all persons in St. Louis County based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Journal of the County Council Page 20 November 13, 2012

Add Ons - Continued  

Moved by Councilman Dolan, and there being no objection, Chair O‟Mara ordered the Communication directed to Patricia Redington, St. Louis County Counselor, from The Honorable Patrick M. Dolan, Councilman for the 5th District, requesting legislation be prepared for introduction with regard to insuring the prohibition of discrimination against all persons in St. Louis County based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, be received, filed and the County Counselor be directed to prepare the appropriate legislation.

Important St. Louis County Meeting: Tue. @ 3pm

Re: making a special class for sexual orientation or gender identity

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Lisa Pannett <lzpannett@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Friends,

The St. Louis County Council is trying to pass legislation by an ordinance enforced by law that reads: Legislation to insure the prohibition of discrimination against all persons in St. Louis County based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Example of how this could be used:

A Catholic private school decides not to hire a man dressed as a woman because it goes against their beliefs. 

Any business decides based on merit that they do not want to hire an individual.  This person who was having a gender identity issue now files a complaint.  The company did not know they had a gender identity issue.  This make employers, mind readers.  How are we to know what sexual and or gender identity issues someone is having?

All need to show up and voice their opposition to St. Louis County overstepping their bounds in social issues.  These are state issues to be addressed not a county council issue.  Please show up at 2:30 to sign in and speak at the County Council Chambers at 41 South Central Avenue in Clayton on Tuesday, November 20th.  The short notice and time were also given so that people would not show up.  Please show them that their continued underhanded tactics will not work and fill that room!

God Bless!

Seven Reasons to Vote NO on Health Care Exchange

Seven Reasons to Vote NO on Health Care Exchange

1. There is Only ONE Exchange. The Obamacare Exchange. There is no "state" exchange. There is only the federal Exchange. Obamacare requires States to establish a government-run federally-controlled American Health Benefit Exchange, which must comply with Obamacare and coming federal rules. As Grace-Marie Turner at Galen Institute said about Exchanges in Reason, "States will not be able to do it their way. They'll have to do it Washington's way."

2. "State Flexibility" is a Ruse. Obama is hoping a veneer of "flexibility" will convince state legislatures to establish the federal government-run Exchange in each state. As Michael Cannon at the CATO Institute writes in National Review:

   "...federal control is not just the exchanges' default setting — it's the only setting. In a February 24 letter to the nation's governors, Sebelius extolled the four types of flexibility that Obamacare allows states in shaping their exchanges: 1) States can restrict insurers from participating; 2) states can add even more benefit mandates than Obamacare requires; 3) come 2017, states can opt out of Obamacare by creating a single-payer health-care system; and 4) states can adopt their own "governance structure" and "operational philosophy." In sum, states can impose harsher regulations than Obamacare requires and can choose who sits on their exchange's board. That's it. The only additional latitude the Obama administration has offered came when President Obama told the National Governors Association that he is open to letting them launch single-payer systems in 2014 rather than 2017. [emphasis ours]

3. Exchange is NOT a "Marketplace" and "Sunset" is Trojan Horse. RomneyCare's Connector (Exchange) first offered 24 choices of health plans, now only seven. The Wall Street Journal reported 5/13/11: "Mr. Romney's political appointees converted the architecture of the "connector" [Exchange] that was supposed to support individual and small-business insurance choice into a regulatory body dedicated to stamping it out." People without employer- sponsored coverage will be forced to buy insurance through the government-run Exchange. Government does not establish markets; its impedes them. And "Sunsets" allow objectionable language to become law -- usually permanently.

4. Costly to Taxpayers & Implements Obamaʼs "Single Payer" Agenda. A representative from Deloitte testified to the "adverse selection" problems from costs of the sicker population. He testified that some states with Exchanges today are considering the elimination of all health plans outside their Exchange. (all are grandfathered into Obamacare) The Feds only cover cost of adverse selection from 2014 – 2016. Also, annual operating cost of Exchange is likely $30-$50M.

5. Exchange Nationalizes Health Care. Tom Christina, former Deputy Asst. Attorney General during Reagan Administration told attendees at American Enterprise Institute forum in Washington, D.C. (12/6/10): the Exchange is "anti- market," "enforcement without federal fingerprints" and "nationalization-in-fact."

6. GOP will Share Blame with Obama. As with RomneyCare, GOP lawmakers will be blamed for joining Obama to nationalize health care and to undercut the lawsuits against Obamacare by complying with it before the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (Judge Vinson discussed undercutting in the multi-state Florida lawsuit).

7. 12 States Say "NO": AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IA, IN, LA, MS, MO, MT, NM

Citizens' Council for Health Freedom www.cchfreedom.org 651-646-8935

Fwd: Tell Your Governor to Say NO to ObamaCare!

Tell Your Governor to Say NO to ObamaCare! Tell Your Governor to Say NO to ObamaCare! More Info   November 14, 2012 This Friday, November 16th was the deadline for governors to tell the federal government whether they will set up state-run health exchanges or allow the federal government to set up federal exchanges in the state.  President Obama extended the deadline to December 14th, hoping more governors would cooperate with ObamaCare. We need you to call your governor today to urge him or her to resist ObamaCare by refusing to set up a state-run exchange. As Twila Brase, president of the Minnesota-based Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, informed us at our annual Eagle Council gathering in September, states that wish to stand up to ObamaCare have three options.  They can: Refuse to respond to the HHS request for an update regarding their health insurance exchange intentions, Respond that they will not implement an exchange, as there is nothing statutory compelling them to do so, or Allow the HHS to implement an exchange, and be as passive as possible, offering no assistance as the HHS pursues implementation in their state. As Brase noted, "States should not tie themselves to an annualized operational expense estimated to be between $10 and $100 million per year, when the expense does nothing to help and everything to hurt citizens." Brase concluded, "States must assert their own sovereignty and stand up for the health, privacy and pocketbooks of their citizens." Last week, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, chose the third option, allowing HHS to implement a federal exchange.  McDonnell took a stand against the massive burden ObamaCare would impose on the people of Virginia when he declared, "I don't believe the federal government can possibly deliver its commitment to fully fund the program, and I don't want to be part of contributing trillions of dollars to the national debt." Take Action! Click here for a map showing each governor's current position on the state exchanges. Please take a moment to contact your governor's office and tell them how you feel regardless of their position, expressing thanks and support for resiting ObamaCare or outrage for going along with it.  Click here to find your governor's contact information, and urge him or her to resist ObamaCare by refusing to set up a state run exchange.  It is important that your governors know you support them in passively resisting ObamaCare's very aggressive federal intrusion on state sovereignty! Note:  The Republican Governors Association is holding meetings today through this Friday.  If your Republican governor has already taken the right stand on this issue, be sure to thank them and encourage them to urge their Republican colleagues from other states to hold the line. Further Reading: Citizens' Council for Heath Freedom States Should Absolutely Refuse to Set Up Obamacare Exchanges, By Mario Loyola The legal hurdles Obamacare still must clear, By Politico If Oklahoma Wins Lawsuit, 'The Whole Structure' of ObamaCare 'Starts to Fall Apart', By Michael F. Cannon Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable: Now is not the time to go wobbly, By Michael F. Cannon The IRS Has Gone Rogue: Did Congress intend to offer tax credits through federal exchanges?, By Michael F. Cannon & Jonathan H. Adler Oklahoma Files Amended Lawsuit against Affordable Care Act, By Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt

Fwd: MO Legislative Liberty Update -- Senate Republicans to Discuss Setting Up Obamacare Exchange

Yes, Obamacare can still be killed, one state at a time, just like we killed the RealID Act...

...but it will take a lot of work.

The first step is to keep Missouri from establishing the Obamacare health insurance exchange. Although 63% of Missourians voted to prohibit the governor from setting up an exchange last Tuesday, Prop E does not keep the state legislature from setting on up.

The senate Republicans will be meeting Friday and Saturday to dicuss their options. We have just a few days to convince them to comply with the people's will, and just say NO! to the exchange and all of Obamacare.

Here are some facts the media just won't point out:

1. The Obamacare exchange is NOT simply an online resource for shopping insurance. It sets up new restrictions and penalties that will reduce your options. Some smaller insurance companies have already gone out of business -- Obamacare will leave only a few huge insurace companies with monopolistic protections.
    
2. An exchange set up by the state does not give us control. HB609, the 2011 bill to set up a Missouri exchange included at least 40 references to federal laws or bureaucracies that dictate virtually every meaningful aspect of the exchange. Click for a marked up copy of HB609. And here's the Missouri First analysis of that bill.

Here are a couple of very good articles by the Cato Institute's Michael F. Cannon pointing out the need to fight the exchange:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-road-repeal-starts-states
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333040/obamacare-still-vulnerable-michael-f-cannon

 

Action Item:

Call or email each Republican senator before Thursday. Tell them the people of Missouri don't want them to set up an Obamacare exchange any more than they want the governor to. The sentiment behind the Prop E vote applies to them, too!

(Here are the senators for whom we have public contact information.  Some of the new senators don't have published information yet.)

FName	LName	City	Email1	O. Phone	Party
Dan	Brown	Rolla	Dan.Brown@senate.mo.gov	573-751-5713	R
Mike	Cunningham				R
Tom	Dempsey	St Charles	tom.dempsey@senate.mo.gov	573-751-1141	R
Bob	Dixon	Springfield	bob.dixon@senate.mo.gov	573-751-2583	R
Edgar	Emery	Lamar			R
Michael	Kehoe	Jefferson city		573-751-2076	R
Will	Kraus	Lees summit	Will.Kraus@mail.senate.mo.gov	573-751-1464	R
Brad	Lager	Savannah	brad.lager@senate.mo.gov	573-751-1415	R
John	Lamping	St Louis		573-751-2514	R
Douglas	Libla	Poplar Bluff			R
Brian	Munzlinger	Williamstown		573-751-7885	R
Brian	Nieves	Washington	Brian.Nieves@senate.mo.gov	573-751-3678	R
Michael	Parson	Bolivar	mparson@senate.mo.gov	573-751-8793	R
David	Pearce	Warrensburg	david.pearce@senate.mo.gov	573-751-2272	R
Ron	Richard	Joplin		573-751-2173	R
Gary	Romine	Farmington			R
Scott	Rupp	Wentzville		573-751-1282	R
David	Sater		David.Sater@house.mo.gov		R
Robert	Schaaf	St Joseph	rob.schaaf@senate.mo.gov		R
Kurt	Schaefer	Columbia	kurt.schaefer@mail.senate.mo.gov	573-751-3931	R
Eric	Schmitt	St Louis	eschmitt@senate.mo.gov		R
Ryan	Silvey	Kansas city	Ryan.Silvey@house.mo.gov		R
Wayne	Wallingford		Wayne.Wallingford@house.mo.gov		R
Jay	Wasson	Nixa	jay.wasson@senate.mo.gov	573-751-1503	R

 

For Liberty,

- Ron Calzone

List of arguments against creating healthcare exchanges

Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable  By Michael F. Cannon

11/11/2012

 

President Obama has won reelection, and his administration has asked state officials to decide by Friday, November 16, whether their state will create one of Obamacare's health-insurance "exchanges." States also have to decide whether to implement the law's massive expansion of Medicaid. The correct answer to both questions remains a resounding no.

 

State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange. The Medicaid expansion is likewise too costly and risky a proposition. Republican Governors Association chairman Bob McDonnell (R.,Va.) agrees, and has announced that Virginia will implement neither provision.

There are many arguments against creating exchanges.

First, states are under no obligation to create one.


Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare's individual and employer mandates.

Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.

 

Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the "deadlines" for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.


Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose.


Sixth, a state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.


Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal "fallback" exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.


Eighth, the Obama administration has yet to provide crucial information that states need before they can make an informed decision.


Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.


Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition.


Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.


Twelfth, defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state's employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 59 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 59th). If all states did so, that would exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate's tax of $2,085 per family of four.  Avoiding those taxes improves a state's prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.


Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.


For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.


Medicaid is rife with waste and fraud. It increases the cost of private health care and insurance, crowds out private health insurance and long-term-care insurance, and discourages enrollees from climbing the economic ladder. There is scant reliable evidence that Medicaid improves health outcomes, and no evidence that it is a cost-effective way of doing so.


My colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale estimates that expanding Medicaid will cost individual states up to $53 billion over the first ten years. That's before an emboldened President Obama follows through on his threats to shift more Medicaid costs to states.


Neither the states nor the federal government have the money to expand Medicaid. If all states politely decline, federal deficits will shrink by another $900 billion.


Now is not the time to go wobbly. Obamacare is still harmful and still unpopular. The presidential election was hardly a referendum, as it pitted the first person to enact Obamacare against the second person to enact it. Since the election, many state officials are reaffirming their opposition to both implementing exchanges and expanding Medicaid.


If enough states do so, Congress will have no choice but to reopen Obamacare. With a GOP-controlled House, opponents will be in a much stronger position than they were when this harmful law was enacted.


This article appeared in National Review (Online) on November 9, 2012.

Michael F. Cannon

Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies.

Fwd: : News from Alabama Policy Institute

This sums it up:

"Unfortunately, many Republicans have asked Americans to support those principles [conservative fiscal policy] while simultaneously failing to practice them."

 

One Government to Rule Us All?    Losing Our Freedom One Tax and Regulation at a Time    The Nutritional Value of Eating the Rich        By Cameron Smith | November 9, 2012   A Conservative Hoping for Change    As pundits across the country sift through the electoral debris, President Obama's re-election affords an opportunity for Republican introspection.  The recent election demonstrates that American political ideologies, cultural demographics, and even the level of political engagement are transitioning in a way not seen in generations.  Conservatives face the challenge of determining how the principles of limited government, individual responsibility, strong families, and free markets can regain a foothold during the change.    Republicans need to be frank about the election results.  Their electorate ran a "moderate" candidate against a President whose largest policy accomplishments have been poorly received during a period of lackluster economic performance.  Instead of a Reaganesque sweep, Republicans failed to gain any meaningful traction.  In fact they actually lost ground.  Arguing that the President did not win as many electoral votes as he did in 2008 is about as useful as finding a silver lining in being beaten by two touchdowns instead of three.    Fundraising was not the reason for Republicans' failure.  According to The New York Times, the candidates, national party committees and primary "super PACs" for Romney and Obama each raised almost $1 billion.  Outside spending only added to those numbers.    And while Hurricane Sandy may have impacted Romney's momentum, Obama's handling of the terrorist attacks in Libya, continued economic challenges and several controversial policy initiatives such as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act continued to provide numerous opportunities for Romney.    In fact, given the known challenges facing President Obama, the results of this election may have been determined well before the so-called "undecideds" cast their votes.  Peggy Noonan, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal and former Reagan speech writer, noted that these results may have been baked into the cake for some time.   If that is the case, either the conservative message or the Republican messengers failed to connect with a majority of Americans well before Election Day.  Conservatives point to tomes of historic data and research to back up their positions:  Spending substantially more than  government revenues is a bad idea; central economic planning has rarely produced positive results; and strong two-parent families that worship regularly produce the best economic and social outcomes for children.  To strengthen that message, the test cases of New York, Illinois and California give little reason to support any number of their liberal policy choices nationwide.  According to Gallup polling, 75 percent of Americans even self-identify as conservative or moderate.   In short, Americans have lost faith in conservative and even constitutional ideals because only a rhetorical difference separates the so-called conservative messengers from their opponents.    Either the principles upon which this nation was founded no longer successfully apply to political life in America or Republicans have failed to faithfully engage them.  The evidence seems to support the latter.  Consider just the federal debt.  Republicans have refused to raise taxes while continuing to give their assent to increased spending.  Their concern over the political fallout from actually forcing a reduction of federal spending to levels that track closer to revenues trumps the constitutional principle of a limited government.   As a result, the political left secures the programmatic planning and spending it wants without the corresponding confiscatory tax rates that would cause the electorate to stop it.     Rather than strive for a government limited by constitutional boundaries, Republicans have unsuccessfully attempted to control an unbridled leviathan for their own ends.  Simply waving the Constitution and parading its forgotten words will do little to change that reality.   The message of returning to constitutional principles is not broken, it is not out of touch and it has a timeless practicality.  Unfortunately, many Republicans have asked Americans to support those principles while simultaneously failing to practice them.  In order to introduce a meaningful alternative to modern politics, Republicans must refocus on the tested ideas that guided America for generations and be willing to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to see them to fruition.        Cameron Smith is Policy Director and General Counsel for the Alabama Policy Institute, an independent, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.   Note: This column is a copyrighted feature distributed free of charge by the Alabama Policy Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and API are properly cited. For information or comments, contact Cameron Smith, Alabama Policy Institute, 402 Office Park Drive, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama  35223, (205) 870-9900, or e-mail him at mailto:camerons@alabamapolicy.org