• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Mother Jones Lefty, Kevin Drum, Wonders Why Obama and Dems aren’t Favored More

Mr. Drum could still be a boy.   Many, many Obama Democrats forever  fail to grow up forever living in college, half drunk and entirely empty headed and do nothing but live and write about political fantasies.

There once was a time when the country’s Democratic Party was an American Party, one in which the Federal Constitution was the Law of the Land, and that Americans were run by Law rather than by Men.    It used to be the political party of my choice.

But then the Marxists, black racists and  fems came, and along with these hysterics, came the laws of forced equality to be measured  by Lefty college educated and enforced by  government ukase.   A new wave, an antidemocratic one arrived and captured the national Democratic Party and turned it into the intolerant, arrogant and a racist class of know-nothing bigots which lead it today, a FAR CRY FROM THE AMERICAN LOVING, PROBLEM SOLVING, COOPERATIVE WORKING DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEFORE THE NEW MILLENIUM and George Soros.


Nearly every modern Democrat no matter of what age from the White House down to the racist inner city black plantation streets, is oblivious to American history.    There is no need to know history, for those who are entitled.

The following words  come from Kevin Drum collected  at Mother Jones seemingly written  without a brain stem twitch  of knowledge regarding the character, lawfulness, tolerance  and dedication to both personal and collective  liberty of  yesterday’s American Democratic Party…….before the arrival of foreigner, Barack Hussein Obama in Washington.

Drum writes………….”When I was growing up, one of the big deals in political science was the steady deterioration of party loyalty: People simply didn’t vote the party line the way they had in the past, which made presidential campaigns more volatile. That trend continued for a long time, but seems to have plateaued around 2000 or so, when we famously became a 50-50 nation and party cues apparently began to reassert themselves. It might be more accurate to say that most voters have ideological loyalties these days, rather than party loyalties per se, but I’m not sure that’s much more than a semantic difference in the end. There just aren’t many independents left who genuinely switch their party loyalties from election to election. 

Will this 50-50 split persist? A lot of smart people say that demographic trends are steadily moving in favor of Democrats, and they make a good case. The young have turned sharply against Republicans over the past decade, and brand loyalty means their anti-Republican voting behavior is likely to persist over their entire lives. A lot of that was driven by George Bush and the Iraq war and might therefore be expected to lighten up now, but new cohorts of the young continue to be repelled by the GOP’s anti-gay animus. And the steadily growing nonwhite vote is getting, if anything, even more loyal to the Democratic Party than it was in the past, thanks to Republican immigration stands driven by the tea party. 

And yet, real-world events belie these trends. Republicans continue to be just as competitive in national elections as ever. It’s easy, of course, to chalk this up to events: 9/11 moved the electorate in a pro-Republican direction, while continuing economic stagnation has more recently moved them in an anti-incumbent—and therefore anti-Democratic—direction. But either the demographic argument is wrong, or else it’s been continuing apace, a growing tide held back by chance events. If the latter is true, Democrats should very soon start blowing Republicans out of the water in a very regular and very spectacular kind of way.

That sounds great, but I confess that I don’t see much sign of it. What am I missing?”

Answer?   He has no clue.   He has no clue of the lies, the twisted assumptions, the meaningless words filled with glitter and hope and daggers and snot, and Mr. Drum can’t even see the dirt or smell the stench of the core of the Barack Hussein Obama campaign for re-election to four more years to further contaminate everything American.

We are all a product of our education, whether there has been one or not, whether the one available is dishonorable and devious or not.

Mr. Drum hsn’t a clue.   He is not well enough educated to see through Obamatalk, Obama-incompetence and national failure  resulting from it.   If he is like the Obamalings I know, he is proud that he doesn’t have that old time learning rule that one should know the facts and be logical in presenting information and points of argument.

Like the Soviet Communist Party line, the American Left led by the mainstream media, don’t even know what the Left means, does, and how dangerous it is these days to authority run dictatorship from Washington.

These stone-dead voters think highly of themselves.   They believe their modern Marxist education  has given them  a conscience beyond the Christian,  beyond the timeless Ten Commandments, beyond the science which delineates human male from human female.     Ignorance from eduation has given them a better more uncluttered mind…….ONE MUCH MORE FREE FROM GENERATIONS OF THE PAST.

They express their thoughts  at Mother Jones

Twila Brase Reports on the State of Minnesota’s Health

Report from Twila Brase, President, Citizens’ Council  for Health Freedom:


States say “No Way!” The federal government can’t force states to comply with the Obamacare Medicaid expansion – a $118 billion assault on state budgets. So says the U.S. Supreme Court two weeks ago in a 7-2 decision.

Red State governors are now making quick use of their new-found power. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has announced, “we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we’re not implementing the exchanges.”

Florida Governor Rick Scott wrote in The Washington Times that Florida can’t afford it, won’t implement the Medicaid expansion or the government exchange, and as a governor who lived as a child in public housing, he is “committed to breaking the cycle of dependence on public assistance.”

On Monday, Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a pointed letter to U.S. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. See below. He will not implement the exchange or the Medicaid expansion. The exchange is nothing less than a federal takeover, he writes.

Refusniks emerge. Fifteen states may refuse to expand Medicaid. More should. See list of states below. This is good news. The June 28 Supreme Court ruling reinforcing “state sovereignty” rights will ring ominously for years to come in the ears of big government advocates and would-be tyrants.

States must also refuse Obama’s Exchanges. These federal takeover centers will be used for national registration of the health insurance status of citizens. To stop Obamacare and national health care, the state-based exchanges — government website portals feeding private data into the Federal Data Services Hub for IRS enforcement — must never be created.

New SCOTUS questions are emerging. Who gave Roberts the “tax” rationale? And why did Justice Ruth Ginsburg flip? Almost no one is talking about it, but we are. Check out the answers in this month’s CCHF Health Freedom Watch. If you haven’t signed up to receive it, click here before Friday, the day we will release our special SCOTUS RULING edition.

News to Know:

ROBERTS: Bad or Brilliant?

Two weeks have passed since the Supreme Court ruled the Obamacare mandate a “tax” and sent shock waves from Wasilla to the West Wing. One writer in a point by point overview says Roberts’ “‘reasoning’ is thinner than unleavened bread” and filled with nine “inanities, inconsistencies and constitutional/statutory infirmities.” But several conservative leaders are surprisingly pleased with the Roberts’ ruling. For instance, Jack Tymann, a columnist for Naples Daily News and president of Westinghouse International, says Chief Justice Roberts “may not be a goat but a hero by siding with and negotiating the “best possible deal” with the court’s liberals — and putting the health care law and the President in jeopardy at the same time.

In short, Roberts limited the Commerce Clause for the first time since FDR’s New Deal, ruled the mandate unconstitutional, got the liberal judges to “come clean and admit that Obamacare must be funded by tax increases,” and “allowed states to refuse to play in Obamacare.” By declaring it a tax, Roberts made the law filibuster-proof empowering the U.S. Senate to repeal it with just 51 votes on a “budget reconciliation.” Then he placed the power to undo it in the hands of the American people and the 2012 election. Find out who the other prominent GOP supporter is by signing up to receive the monthly CCHF Health Freedom Watch. The special SCOTUS RULING edition will be emailed free to subscribers this Friday, July 13th.

National Registration of Insurance Status

Obamacare requires registration of health insurance status or payment of a penalty-tax. The national registration system will be comprised of the state-based federally-controlled website portals (“state exchanges”), the federal website portal (“Federal Exchange”) and the Federal Data Services Hub which links it all together. The design specifications for “exchanges” are detailed in what can best be called a big blue book that is at least an inch thick (see photo below). Listed among the details is even the possibility of using the “exchanges” for Voter Registration.

Eight national and state health care foundations funded the effort that created the big blue book, and three federal agencies and 11 participating states were involved in the design process: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts (with Rhode Island and Vermont in a consortium), Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oregon and Tennessee. An additional four states joined for refinement of the design: Arizona, Kansas, Maryland and New Mexico.

CCHF inquired about the voter registration section and unexpectedly learned that the executive-ordered MN Exchange office is trying to figure out how to pre-populate the exchange with a “master index” of the state’s population. One possible source mentioned by Exchange staff for acquiring this data: the taxpayer database at the MN Department of Revenue.

GOV. PERRY: Absolutely Not

Governor Rick Perry wrote HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius a letter, which includes the following: “Now that the ‘gun to the head’ has been removed, please relay this message to the President: I oppose both the expansion of Medicaid as provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the creation of a so-called ‘state’ insurance exchange, because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.”

“The PPACA does not truly allow states to create and operate their own exchanges. Instead, it gives the federal government the final say as to which insurance plans can operate in a so-called ‘state’ exchange, what benefits those plans must provide, and what price controls and cost limits will apply. It leaves many questions to be answered later through federal ‘future rulemaking.’ In short, it essentially treats the states like subcontractors through which the federal government can control the insurance markets and pursue federal priorities rather than those of the individual states.” In conclusion, Perry writes, “[T]he PPACA’s unsound encroachments will find no foothold here.”

ONE National Exchange

The law does not require states to set up exchanges. Cost estimates are $10 – $100 million per year. For states that refuse, HHS must set up a federal exchange (FX). But Congress provided no funding for an FX. They assumed state compliance. Not so. HHS is therefore siphoning Medicare dollars to build the FX, according to Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon (CCHF’s “soundbites” video at 2:21). Quoting the “Federal Exchange Statement of Work” document (2011) demonstrates HHS plans for a SINGLE federal exchange:

These requirements are for systems development and delivery of a federally operated Federal Exchange (FX). The Contractor’s proposed solution shall be designed and developed to interoperate with the Data Services Hub and State Exchanges…

The Federal Exchange Program System (FEPS) consists of a FX that serves the needs of individuals within states where those states do not have their own state-run exchange, and the Data Services Hub (DSH), which provides common services and interfaces to federal agency information…

For this task order, CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] desires a Managed Services approach that will include the following: (1) Architecting and developing a Federal Exchange that may be used by any state that opts out of building and operating its own Exchange…

Re(fuse) States; Blue States

Dollars, politics, party and the 2012 election likely determine each state’s response to the Obamacare ruling. On July 3, THE HILL published the following list indicating which states will pursue the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare. As Governor Rick Perry makes clear, Texas has moved from “leaning no” to absolutely “NO”:


Undecided, Leaning YES: AR

Undecided: AK, AZ, CO, DE, ID, KY, ME, MI, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SD, TN, UR, WV, WY

Undecided, Leaning NO: AL, GA, IN, MS, MO, NV, TX, VA


Personal Note to Conservative Friends, Mark Waldeland, Garry Espe, Regina Reed, and so many others:

It is my prejudice, that is, my deep personal belief as I have amassed information to form knowledge about today’s American dilemma;  the collapse of intellectual morality of its once honorable National Democratic Party and the collapse of nearly every facit of morality exercised  by the violent in the American inner city Democrat Party  black plantation culture, and the reeling debt of $17,000,000,000,000 WE Americans face, tell me at this point in the presidential campaign, that  Barack Hussein Obama, THE DISSOLUTE  on everything verbal and INCOMPETENT regarding nearly everything presidential,  will be overwhelmed at the polls this coming November 6………

UNLESS…..you stay home AND do nothing to advance America’s dream of your future Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness as YOU rather than the DECEIVERS presently in Washington, choose to express them, during these few months until that fateful November day of decision……OR AMERICA IS FAR MORE CORRUPT, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY DISEASED than even I fear.  

Obama, the DECEITFUL, must be defeated   

But, as Dennis Prager preaches so eloquently and accurately, Barack Hussein Obama did not cause these present CRISES which are dooming our Nation, whether the grinding debt, the economic dissaray and unemployment, the ethical, moral, and behavioral morass of a drugged up, fatherless oriented American family, and the  epidemic of Godless atheism and the loss of the old American saying regarding the untoward, “Well, that just isn’t a very Christian thing to do!”

For much of my lifetime that comment often  slipped into “Well, that just isn’t a very American thing to do” which was synonymous……..until the last three decades of the advance of university Marxism and the arrival of Obama, the deceitful, devious, disingenuous, dishonest and divisive Leftwinger now running for re-election.

YOUR FUTURE IS STILL, MORE OR LESS, IN YOUR OWN  HANDS…..It will  not be if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected.

Marxists’ MSNBC Poster Doll, Andrea Mitchell Stunned and Chokes on her Obamalies

by Scott Johnson in 2012 Presidential Election, Obama administration

Outsource this

Andrea Mitchell invited Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu to appear on her MSNBC show to discuss the Obama campaign talking point of the day (or is it month?): outsourcing. Mitchell had the Obama campaign memo, alright, and sought to execute like a good foot soldier.

But Mitchell was unprepared for the Romney campaign’s counterattack on Obama as outsourcer-in-chief. It has something to do with those vaunted green jobs brought to us by the administration. “When you’ve sent $500 million to Fisker and it goes to Finland immediately. When you send the solar money and it goes to Mexico. When you send the turbine money and it goes to Denmark. And we can go on all day,” Sununu said. “There is $29 billion worth of purchases that came out of this administration, outsourced jobs to foreign countries.”

Mitchell was rendered tongue-tied and almost speechless. An old pro, Sununu himself cannot suppress the mirth that Mitchell inspires. “You are struggling, Andrea,” Sununu observes, “you’re struggling.” Ouch.

Mitchell promises to get back to him with the numbers — maybe by the time Sununu’s done laughing at her.

Kevin Williamson’s gibe still stands, by the way: “Could somebody please get Barack Obama to shut up about outsourcing until some undergraduate aide has explained to him what the word means? As it stands, the president is showing himself an ignorant rube on the subject, and that is to nobody’s advantage.”

Four more months of this will kill brain cells I cannot afford to lose at this point.


More at Hot Air and Business Insider, which have posted the complete MSNBC video clips. News Busters has posted an edited transcript to accompany the edited video above.

Thomas Sowell: Runaway Spending and Obama’s Own Private Language


The Invincible Lie

By Thomas Sowell – July 11, 2012      at the Investor’s Business Daily

“Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama. On Monday, July 9th, for example, he said that Republicans “believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth.”

Let us begin with the word “spend.” Is the government “spending” money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.


Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers’ unions, is not called spending but “investment.” You can say anything if you have your own private language.

But let’s go back to the notion of “spending” money on “the wealthiest Americans.” The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth — and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.

People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than people in their thirties and forties — but lower incomes. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax “the wealthiest Americans” is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.

The really big lie — and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in — is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will “trickle down” to the rest of the people.

Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether among economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.

Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.

Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a very iffy proposition.

This issue has been fought out in the United States in several administrations — both Democratic and Republican. It has also been fought out in other countries.

What is the real argument of those who want to prevent taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their prosperity will “trickle down.”

A Democratic president — John F. Kennedy — stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors’ “efforts to avoid tax liabilities” made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made “certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings” for the country.

Ironically, the Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.

In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.

But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.” 

John Stossel….What about the $17,000,000,000,000 debt crisis AND HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT?

Budget Insanity

By John Stossel – July 11, 2012

 AT  realclearpolitics:

“Last year, Congress agreed to $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, unless politicians find other things to cut. They didn’t, of course. So now, with so-called sequestration looming in January, panic has set in. Even the new “fiscally responsible” Republicans vote against cutting Energy Department handouts to companies like Solyndra and subsidies to sugar producers. Many claim that any cut in military spending will weaken America and increase unemployment.

It’s another demonstration of the politicians’ addiction to spending — and how we are complicit. “One more infrastructure bill” or “this jobs plan” will jumpstart the economy, and then we’ll kick our spending addiction once and for all.

But we don’t stop.

For most of American history, government was tiny. But since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the promise that government would cure poverty, spending has gone up nonstop. This is not sustainable.

Progressives say: If you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! But it’s a fantasy to imagine that taxing the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit.

It’s the spending, stupid.

Even if you could balance the budget by taxing the rich, it wouldn’t be right. Progressives say it’s wrong for the rich to be “given” more money. But money earned belongs to those who earn it, not to government. Lower taxes are not a handout.

That’s the moral side of the matter. There’s a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation.

Even if you think — despite all evidence — that government spends money more usefully than people in the private sector, there is a limit to how much government can tax before people work less or flee.

Progressives claim a small increase in tax rates won’t stop the wealthy from producing. But some would stop. When the top marginal rate was 90 percent, actor Ronald Reagan worked just half the year. He said that woke him up to the damage that high taxes impose.

Higher taxes give rich people and politicians more reasons to collude. The rich make contributions, and politicians pay the rich back by giving them tax loopholes.

That’s a big loss to America. That money and creative energy spent on figuring out taxes might have gone to build new products, make music, cure cancer or … who knows what?

Politicians promise to balance the budget by getting rid of what is wasteful, redundant or unnecessary. There’s plenty of that, but they have promised to eliminate it for years. They cannot. It’s just in the nature of the beast. Centrally planned monopolies do things that are wasteful, redundant and unnecessary.

What will bankrupt us first are the wealth transfers to my generation: Medicare and Social Security

When FDR started Social Security, most people didn’t even live to age 65. Today, we average 78 — and we baby boomers demand all the cool new stuff that modern medicine invents: anti-cholesterol drugs, hip replacements, etc. And we don’t want to pay for most of it because we’ve been trained by government to assume that we’re entitled to these things for free, or nearly free. We paid into Social Security and Medicare for our entire working lives, and damn it, we’re entitled to get our money back!

Few of us realize that most of us get back up to three times what we paid in, that politicians have promised Social Security and Medicare recipients an impossible $46 trillion more than will exist and that our sense of entitlement will ruin America much faster than foreign aid, subsidies for NPR or foreign wars ever will.

Amazingly, we could grow our way out of debt if Congress simply froze spending at today’s levels. That would balance the budget by 2017. If spending growth were limited to just 2 percent per year, the budget would balance by 2020!

But the politicians won’t do even that.

It’s depressing writing this. But it’s not hopeless. There are examples of fiscal sanity we can follow — if we have the will. ”

Dennis Prager: “They found the “God-Particle”

The “God-Particle” and God

Tuesday, July 10, 2012
They found the “God-Particle.” from Dennis Prager.com…….The Dennis Prager Radio Show is broadcast in the Twin Cities weekly at Salem Radio, at 1280 AM from 11:ooam to 2:00pm.   Dennis can correctly be described as the most skilled teacher of conservative principles and Leftist antiAmericanism in America today.

That was the headline in many of America’s news media. It turns out that the name actually derives from substituting “God-particle” for “goddamn particle,” the original name some scientists had given the elusive particle. But the media adopted the former nomenclature.


Because otherwise, the bulk of humanity would not pay attention. Physicists went nuts. And no one can blame them. For decades, they have searched for the particle that may explain why there is any mass in the universe. And ten billion dollars were spent on the machine that probably proved its existence.

It is therefore not meant in any disrespectful way to the enormous intellectual achievement of these scientists when I say that I identify with the mass of humanity that doesn’t really care about the existence of the Higgs boson.

Those scientists and science writers who have likened this discovery to the discovery of DNA are wrong. If significance means relevance to the human condition, the discovery of DNA merited a ten out of ten and the Higgs boson might merit a two.

This does not mean that the search was either a waste of time or money. Both the time and money invested were necessary because satiating human curiosity about the natural world is one of the noblest ambitions of the human race.

But scientific discovery and meaning are not necessarily related. As one of the leading physicists of our time, Steven Weinberg, has written, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”

And pointlessness is the point. The discovery of the Higgs boson brings us no closer to understanding why there is a universe, not to mention whether life has meaning. In fact, no scientific discovery that will ever be made will explain why there is existence, render good and evil anything more than subjective opinion, or explain why human beings have consciousness or anything else that truly matters.

The only thing that can explain existence and answer these other questions is God or some other similar metaphysical belief. This angers those scientists and others who are emotionally as well as intellectually committed to atheism. But many honest atheists recognize that a godless world means a meaningless one, and admit that science can only explain what, not why.

In a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal, Woody Allen, an honest atheist, made this point in his inimitable way. Allen told the interviewer that, being a big sports fan, and especially a New York Knicks fan, he is often asked whether it’s important if the Knicks beat the Celtics. His answer is, “Well, it’s just as important as human existence.” If there is no God, Allen is right.

One must have a great deal of respect for the atheist who recognizes the consequences of atheism: no meaning, no purpose, no good and evil beyond subjective opinion, and recognition of the limits of what science can explain.

But the atheist — scientist, philosophy professor, or your brother-in-law who sells insurance — who denies the consequences of atheism is as worthy of the same intellectual respect atheists have for those who believe in a six thousand-year-old universe.

Not only is science incapable of discovering why there is existence but scientists also confront the equally frustrating fact that the more they discover about the universe, the more they realize they do not know.

I happen to think that this was God’s built-in way of limiting man’s hubris and compelling humans to acknowledge His existence. Admittedly, however, this doesn’t always have these two effects on scientists and especially on those who believe that science will explain everything.

So, sincere congratulations to the physicists and other scientists who discovered the Higgs boson. We now think we have uncovered the force or the matter that gives us the four percent of the universe that we can observe (96 percent of the universe consists of “dark matter,” about which scientists know almost nothing).

Ironic as it may seem to many of these physicists, however, only if there is a God does their discovery matter. Otherwise, it is no more important than whether the Knicks beat the Celtics.