Al Gore wins Peace Prize

Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to raise awareness on the issue of climate change. The argument from conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, is that with this move, the Nobel committee has lost all credibility. I would agree with Rush, except for one thing: the Nobel committee lost its credibility long ago: between Yasir Arafat and Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for years now. In fact, Al Gore is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for the same reason he was given an Oscar: he's a liberal who is unafraid to bloviate endlessly about global warming.

The primary flaw behind Al Gore's awards are that his film was a sham, full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies about the nature of global warming. The news that Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is not as important as the news that an English court recently ruled that teachers showing Gore's movie to school children must give a disclaimer, explaining that the film contains inacuracies and partisan political views.

True conservatives can only hope that this English court's decision will introduce some logic into the global warming debate (which Gore refuses to engage in, citing "scientific consensus"), though that seems unlikely, as the mainstream TV and print media largely ignored the story coming out of England, yet have been praising Gore almost constantly since the Nobel Peace Prize announcement.

Al Gore & Rush Limbaugh

This week, Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh were both nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize - Al Gore for his global warming propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth," and Rush for "fighting for conservative principles in America," and because of his "tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin."

Since the inception of his program, Rush has been decried as a Nazi, homophobe, and many other divisive names. As one responder to "The Lede" blog on the New York Times website put it, Rush is "a crack-addicted neo-nazi bigot who rants at every opportunity against Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and non-European visitors to the United States." Personally, I don't know how so many people got it into their heads that Rush is evil; I listen to his radio program almost every day, and the most evil thing he tends to do is to use logic to defend conservatism and argue against liberalism. Of course, to too many liberals and members of the Democrat party, logical argument is the very definition of evil, so I guess that works. The "crack-addicted" remark makes me laugh, though - Rush Limbaugh was addicted to prescription painkillers after he received back surgery - something that could happen to anyone, and has, in fact, happened to many people. Rush was not using crack, heroine, meth, or any other illegal drug; he became addicted to medicine that had been prescribed to him by a doctor. The sad truth of it is that many liberals are willing to give more compassion to real crack addicts whose own choices lead them into their addiction than they are willing to give to someone who becomes addicted because he is trying to deal with unbearable pain.

There apparently are some questions surrounding the validity of Rush's nomination, but regardless of the hair-splitting when it comes to the nomination rules, I believe (obviously) that Rush's nomination is the more valid of the two. Here's why:

Al Gore was nominated because, as one of his nominators stated,

A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference. …

Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up.

(Note: "Sheila" refers to Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist.)

The only "inconvenient truth" when it comes to global warming is that the science behind the theory, at this point, is inconclusive. According to liberals, failure to accept each and every tenet of man-made global warming is tantamount to heresy, and as time goes on, liberals come closer and closer to stoning those they deem heretics. The best defense that liberals have come up with for man-made global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus," and as I addressed in my last post, scientific consensus is itself a farce. Science does not operate by consensus, it operates by process; this process is known as the scientific method (note that "form a consensus" does not appear as part of that method). As Rush Limbaugh and others have pointed out, if consensus dictated science, we would still believe that the world was flat!

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has spent the last 20+ years enhancing the democratic process in America by defending conservatism and advocating for conservative values. He has created a media empire in a nation whose media has, for decades, been overwhelmingly liberal. He is rightly the father of talk radio, one of the most popular and profitable forms of media in the 21st Century. He has approached issues with logic, humor, and sarcasm, but rarely, if ever, with divisiveness. He is hated by many liberals, but this is only because he proves, again and again, to be right on almost every issue.

The simple truth of the matter is that, when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, liberals hate him because he presents the conservative side of the debate clearly, articulately, and with humor, and for all of the liberals' lip-service to debate, they would much rather shut the conservative side down. But Rush is here to stay, and I pray that he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, because if he does win, it is not just a victory for Rush Limbaugh, it is a victory for conservatism in America.