An excellent column by Limbaugh. Cases like these illustrate the feebleness of mainstream conservatism. Having worked do hard to achieve some modicum of respectability, they are not likely to throw it all away on so unpopular a cause.

Of course, its unpopularity rests precisely in the fact that conservatism has surrendered so much ground that symobolic and misunderstood cases like this are all that’s left. I am tempted to say, Where -else- might one put a monument to the Decalogue than in a courthouse? I mean, the text memorialized is hardly profound as a religious; rather, its significance is legal.

People like Judge Moore are left to defend such peculiar things because the Leftist advance has overrun so much else.

I keep wondering: Why choose the Alabama courthouse case as the ONE place for everyone to make a stand against the tyrannical federal government, when at least half of its budget is spent on items for which it has no constitutional authority, and there are no public protests about any of it?

I think the answer to Mr. Coleman’s question was provided by Mr. Cella: conservatives have ceded so much ground, that the only ground left to fight over is peculiar symbolic issues like this monument. I fully support Judge Moore. Nevertheless, this incident is an index of overall conservative weakness and retreat, not of strength. It is a desperate, last gesture of protest, after everything else has been taken away.

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that the liberal judiciary is quite willing to use the 14th amendment in the process of imposing their religion (atheism) on the states, but are nevertheless able to deny its plain and simple application in the Grutter case.