This is not an endorsement, but speaking theoretically, one of the reasons the United States would be better off with a Sarah Palin as president rather than a Barack Obama is that she operates within thought-forms closer to the mission statement and vision statement of our country -- as defined by the Declaration of Independence and as safeguarded by a form of government consistent with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Now comes the Palin op-ed that appears in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. The op-ed makes several points worthy of discussion. For example, "that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters."

That's good, and the op-ed is a worthy read. But does it miss a crucial point, perhaps the crucial point?

Consider how the former governor of Alaska defines "real health-care reform." She says it is "market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven."

Attractive as this sounds, my friends, I am not so sure. Yes. Big federal-centric government is a devastating problem -- but, at the heart of the matter, on what grounds?

At its strategic core, it seems to me, for those who appreciate something of the historic and principial struggle between liberty and tyranny, real healthcare reform is primarily Constitution-oriented and Declaration-oriented.

Is this not more to the point?

The weakness of the merely "market-oriented," etc., formulation is that it leaves untouched the socialist big government premise that the ever-expanding and mutating federal empire somehow has the Constitutional authority to impose its freedom-limiting will on American healthcare in the first place. 

An additional weakness is that it offers a tactical answer to a strategic challenge, an approach that seems ill-suited to win the battle for freedom, much less healthcare. Moreover, it offers solutions that belong to realms beyond the calling of government, especially the federal government. 

Far better to get government out of the way of markets, so that ethical people can creatively make their living and provide for their families. Far better to get government out of the doctor's office, so that health is not subject to political calculations and the aspirations of rogue politicians. Far better to see results driven by success, health, and humanity.

But perhaps I err. In that case, if someone would like to make the Constitutional argument for socialized medicine, please step forward. In the process, please note that Democrat Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia has already admitted that "there is 'no place in the Constitution' that mentions health care."

What seems to disturb -- and rightly so -- so many of the Tea Party people is that too many members of both the Democratic and Republican Parties seem not to appreciate the Constitutional crisis at the heart of not just the healthcare debate but so many other issues across the board in American life and political thought today.

My conviction is that there is hope for freedom in America.

A free and dignified people -- who have "read the directions" and who understand they are created in the image of God and thereby endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights" -- do not willingly sell the soul of liberty in exchange for state-controlled hospitals or equalized medical outcomes as rationed by socialists, calculating politicians in Congress, "helpful" federal bureaucrats pulling strings from Washington, or greedy power-grubbers in general.

This is why we begin to resist that growing train of abuses conceived and enacted against our will and against the content and spirit of the Founding vision. We welcome the arrival of public servants who know precisely where to drive the stake.