It's not crazy to stand with Ronald Reagan and the founders

At American Thinker, Villanova emeritus law professor Howard Lurie addresses the liberal charge that Sarah Palin is crazy for warning about death panels:

The absence of specific language in the Constitution or a statute doesn't mean that something isn't there. There is no language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from concluding that such a right exists. The right to an abortion arose out of the right of privacy that also lacks any textual support in the Constitution.

[...]

If the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is subordinate to "a compelling state interest," one could reasonably fear that the Amendment's guarantee that no person should be deprived "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law is likewise subordinate to "a compelling state interest." Arguably, the preservation of dwindling government health care dollars is "a compelling state interest."

[...]

I hasten to remind the reader that it was not too long ago that, in the interest of the greater good, states were forcibly sterilizing the mentally retarded. "It is better for all the world" said the eminent jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. speaking for the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell (1927), if "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

Professor Lurie reminds us that over one million abortions a year are performed with the full sanction of the president and the Supreme Court, many of them merely for the convenience of the mother, and concludes:

If the burden of the unwanted justifies their extermination prior to birth, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the burden of the unwanted ill and infirm elderly would constitute a justification for their early exit from this world. Will some number of ill and infirm aged be "enough"?

There are but a few steps between government mandated end-of-life counseling, and the "better for all the world" ending of life by government mandates.

Sarah Palin is not crazy.

Blogger Mark Epstein, a pro-life libertarian, concurs:

If there’s an undergirding insanity in the body public, it’s not Sarah’s beliefs, but those who abhor her.

Anyone who doubts that there are many who call themselves Republicans but neither support nor agree with the principles stated in the Grand Old Party's platform, should look no further than the anti-Palin faction of the GOP. These Vichy Republicans are not only anti-Palin, but they have turned their backs on the very principles which Ronald Reagan so effectively preached and practiced to become the most successful GOP presidential candidate in modern history. Sarah Palin has embraced Reagan's principles. Epstein touches on two of them, family values (including standing for life) and fiscal restraint:

While the left uneducatedly screams about separation of church and state, the Republicans see acceptance of abortion as a political means to an end. Sarah takes issue with both and, since the majority of Americans oppose abortion, it would seem Palin is more in touch with the citizenry than either of the two major political parties.

[...]

Now that America is suffering a more than 16.8% real unemployment rate, the corporate thieves have made off with taxpayer money, and the country stands on the precipice of hyperinflation, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama era policies are coming home to roost. Obama’s answer? Pass the largest pork-laden generational-theft act in history, whose only result will enslave future Americans to the federal government for generations to come. Sarah has a problem with this and so do most Americans.

[...]

Of all the politicians in America, Sarah "gets it" with respect to the God-ordained role of the family — the very same God who grants Americans their inalienable rights.

Although not cited by Epstein, Sarah Palin stands strong for Reagan's other two principles. The first of these is national security, not only through a strong military, but through her advocacy of replacing imported oil and gas with our abundant domestic resources to achieve true energy security. The other is limiting the growth in the size of the federal government, a Palin position which has won her the support of many libertarians.

In conclusion, Epstein warns that unless the GOP turns away from its "royalist" ways (we know the Democrat Party won't), the Republican Party could be marked for extinction:

Glenn Beck is leading the charge in this area and his ratings reflect a disenchantment with both political parties. Americans are energized and they want real change, regardless of party affiliation. At this point, Sarah Palin could conceivably run as an Independent and trounce both parties combined. Why? Given the public’s disaffection with Obama’s Pravda (mainstream media) and its loss of viewership combined with crumbling newspapers, Beck and bloggers are rapidly becoming the option for real news “choice.” And the choice is clear: Throw ALL the bums out of Washington.

If the GOP goes the way of the dodo, it need look no further than the Vichy Republicans of the Tom Ridge and David Frum school and spineless "conservatives" who lack the courage to fight for not only the principles which Ronald Reagan stood for, but for which our founders pledged "our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor."

Related: Read Bill Quick's "Control and the Young Lions" at Daily Pundit.

- JP