Morongate: Matthew Yglesias Proves, Once Again, He's the Dumbest Blogger Alive (Unless Joe Biden Started a Blog When I Wasn't Looking)

Over at Thin Progress, the intellectually stunted Matthew Yglesias contends that "If The Founders Had Wanted a Supermajority Requirement for the Senate, They Could Have Put One in the Constitution"; although Yglesias doesn't like the Constitution and he explicitly says so in the very same secretion.

Yglesias, apparently, missed Schoolhouse Rock when he was a kid and can't seem to locate the official rules of the Senate.

Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless three-fifths of the Senate (60 out of 100 senators "duly chosen and sworn") brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority; but, under current Senate rules, the rule change itself could be filibustered. In this case votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting would be required to break the filibuster.

Yglesias, it would seem, had no problem whatsoever...

...when Democrats created the judicial filibuster, an unconstitutional maneuver designed to prevent President George W. Bush from naming the first Hispanic, Miguel Estrada, to the nation's second-highest court.

The modern, radical left Democrat Party, and its sycophants like Yglesias, are cynical, intellectually dishonest and completely, utterly at odds with our founding, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

That Yglesias attempts to cite the founding -- when he and his ilk routinely ignore the Constitution in their illegal attempts to change the relationship between the individual and the state -- is the very definition of chutzpah. It would, in fact, be high comedy were the stakes not so high.

Yglesias Disses the Constitution

Furthermore, Yglesias -- in the very same eruption of verbal excrement -- slams the Constitution itself, stating, "...US officials seem to know better than to indulge in the patriotic myth that our constitution is the greatest system of government ever devised."

Really, Ygly? Really? Where is it better? Zimbabwe? Greece? Red China?

We are conservatives, which is to say we believe in the founding principles of the United States of America. That is: limited government, a respect for individual liberty, free enterprise and private property.

You reject America's founding principles: the very tenets that led to the creation of the greatest country the world has ever seen.

In little more than two hundred years, Americans defeated slavery, Nazism, military Shintoism and Communism; refined mass production; invented human flight; created 75% of all medical innovations on the planet; put a man on the moon; invented the telephone, the Internet and the search engine; and advanced humankind in millions of other ways, in every field and endeavor.

You oppose our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence.

You refute the notion of God-given rights of man and carefully constructed limits on an all-powerful, centralized, authoritarian government.

You see the world as rigid classes of people that must be manipulated to advance a political agenda; whereas we conservatives revel in the notion that America has no static class structure; that every day the rich become poor and the poor rich.

You oppose free markets and the power of the individual -- no matter the race, creed, religion or color -- to achieve greatness through hard work, study, inspiration and innovation.

Now go wait in line at the DMV, you whining twit, so you can experience the kind of service you'll receive when your grand socialized health care plan goes into effect.


Hat tip: Memeorandum. Linked by: InstaPundit, Michelle Malkin, The Other McCain, ShoutFirst and The Astute Bloggers, who provide an excellent history lesson for the "progressives". Thanks!