I can think of no one better to ring in the Fourth of July than our 40th president, Ronald Wilson Reagan.  Happy Birthday, America.

Near the end of Deroy Murdock’s column discussing the insanity of the federal government’s upcoming incandescent light bulb ban in favor of a mercury-laden replacement comes the iconic gem above.

It’s a detailed “how-to” label design provided ever so helpfully by the Federal Trade Commission to guide bulb packagers.  I don’t know whether to be relieved that the bureaucracy is trying to be this helpful in its mandates or crestfallen that taxpayer money is going to finance this kind of project.

That’s the contention of Slate’s Steve Kornacki, who heard more than an aw-shucks defense of the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) from the former president.  Byrd was a former Klansman who Clinton seems to think rode the changing tides of racial (in)tolerance to an unbroken 51 year Senate career.

But to hear Clinton tell it, Byrd’s Klan membership — and, more broadly, the ghastly record on racial issues that marked his first three decades in Congress — was more the product of a cynical career calculation. He knew it was wrong but figured it would help him get ahead, and then, when he finally did establish himself in Washington, he tried to make up for it by using his power for good. (A similar portrait of LBJ emerges in Robert Caro’s exhaustive biographical series.)

Watching Clinton today, I couldn’t help thinking that the former president, intentionally or not, was also talking about himself and his own approach to politics. Like LBJ, Clinton never really saw the point in making principled-but-unpopular stands in election years. The important thing, he seemed to believe, was to be in office and to make as many right decisions then as politics would allow.

Ah, the courage to be conniving.  Thanks to Kornacki’s insight, Americans can relearn a lesson they’d probably prefer to forget: When it comes to rationalizing bad behavior by politicians, Bill Clinton is the undisputed master.

While it may mark me a heretic to praise both an Englishman and a Liberal Democrat on the eve of the eve of the Fourth of July, I hope my recent paean to Everyday Americans evens the ledger.

I think it has to be said that Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is the most fascinating politician in the English-speaking world.  Unlike his rival for that title in the United States, Clegg has already made a positive contribution to the politics of his country.

Yesterday, Clegg announced the launch of a government website called “YourFreedom.”  It’s part of Clegg’s commitment to radically reduce the size of government in Britain in a direct reversal of the Labour Party’s thirteen years of increasing control of nearly everything Brits do.

I’d tell you more about it, but Clegg does better than I ever could:

What was once mostly a little used device is now becoming the Democrat majority’s favorite way to pass legislation.  So-called “deem and pass” – the highly controversial maneuver that greased the skids for ObamaCare’s passage – was used late last night to pass a $1.1 TRILLION dollar budget.  The corruption of the legislative process was doubly dirty because the non-voted measure was added to an emergency war spending bill.

And just in case you’re wondering, this is the main operating budget for the federal government this year.  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) sent up a smoke signal a few days ago that this kind of “budget enforcement resolution” might happen; especially since Democrats think American voters are too stupid to realize that “passing” a bill is the same as “voting on” a bill.

November can’t get here fast enough.

Never underestimate the speed and focus possible when the politicos in charge of government set their minds to getting something done.  Less than four days after the United States Supreme Court said that the U.S. Constitution’s 2^nd Amendment applied to states and municipalities like Chicago, the Second City’s aldermen rose to the challenge.

Unfortunately, they responded by deliberately passing a law to discriminate against gun owners to the maximum extent the Constitution might allow.  (Lost amid most of the coverage this week on the result in McDonald v. City of Chicago is that Justice Alito’s plurality opinion announces only that the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms applies to Chicago.  It leaves to lower courts the careful work of figuring out which gun control laws are in fact unconstitutional.)

Let’s try a mind experiment.  Suppose a controversial Supreme Court opinion came down applying a universal right guaranteed in the Constitution against states and municipalities that had to do with, oh, let’s say…racial discrimination.  If the losing city in the decision responded in less than four days with an ordinance that deliberately tried to see how far it could still discriminate and pass constitutional muster, would that city council be lauded for its activism?

Maybe there’s a North Coast bias.

Last week, I wrote that even as august a figure as David Petraeus may not be enough to save the American military endeavor in Afghanistan given that country’s poor suitability for a counterinsurgency strategy.

Writing in today’s D.C. Examiner, Byron York looks at what General Petraeus’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee reveals about the war’s shortcomings:

“For example, nearly seven million Afghan children are now in school as opposed to less than one million a decade ago under Taliban control,” Petraeus said. “Immunization rates for children have gone up substantially and are now in the 70 to 90 percent range nationwide. Cell phones are ubiquitous in a country that had virtually none during the Taliban days.”

It was an extraordinary moment. Americans overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks. In eight and a half years of war there, 1,149 American servicemembers have died. And after all that sacrifice, the top American commander is measuring the war’s progress by school attendance, child immunization and cell phone use.

Petraeus is a military hero, deserving of every accolade that has been heaped upon him for the success of the surge in Iraq. But defining victory in Afghanistan as erecting a functional civil society overseen by a competent government is a “boil the ocean” strategy that may not be achievable in 18 years, let alone 18 months. And it’s relation to our legitimate national security interests in Central Asia is tangential at best.

Rather than letting the current strategy atrophy into withdrawal, it’s time for the administration to start developing an approach in Afghanistan that protects our legitimate security priorities without indulging in nation-building that has neither the domestic support nor the timeframe necessary to succeed.

In an interview with CFIF, Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, discusses what makes for a truly great Supreme Court Justice and the nomination and confirmation process as it relates Elena Kagan.

Listen to the interview here.

Take a look at Table 2.1, “Receipts by Source: 1934-2015” here on the White House Office of Management and Budget website.  For the year 2009, the federal government took in $915 billion in income tax receipts.  Then take a look at this Congressional Budget Office report that the Obama “stimulus,” which was originally estimated to cost $787 billion, in fact cost $862 billion.

And to what effect?  The Obama White House promised that his “stimulus” would keep unemployment below 8%, but we’ve instead suffered months of approximately 10% unemployment.  Gross domestic product reports are tepid and often revised downward, and the Labor Department reported this week that unemployment claims increased just as Obama and Biden embarked on their “Recovery Summer” tour.

Obama’s “stimulus” has only succeeded in adding almost $1 trillion to our nation’s unsustainable debt, while failing in its stated goals.  For the same cost, we could have completely eliminated the income tax for an entire year.  That’s right – no income tax at all for 2009.  Imagine the real-world stimulative effect that would have had.  Unfortunately, Obama and liberals prefer more government spending and control of taxpayer dollars to the true stimulative effect that the income tax elimination would have instead provided.  They know that once Americans suddenly saw those dollars in their pockets, it would be nearly impossible to corral them back into Washington’s usual tax-and-borrow-and-spend ranch.

Today’s BigGovernment.com queue includes our commentary on the disturbingly cozy marriage of convenience between BP and the Obama Administration.

BP and the Obama Agenda

By Timothy H. Lee

For years, liberals in Washington have tirelessly thwarted America from tapping its domestic sources of energy, while hypocritically lamenting our “addiction to foreign oil.” They have forsworn abundant energy supplies just off our coasts and erected boundaries against drilling and energy development right here at home. The unfortunate effect of their effort is to unnecessarily drive exploration further and further offshore, to deeper and deeper depths.

Suddenly, those same forces are forging a marriage of convenience with BP to scapegoat the entire energy industry for BP’s individualized failures. In his Oval Office speech to the nation, for instance, President Obama resorted to sloppy slurs against “oil industry lobbyists” and “an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.” …

Read the entire piece here.

It’s the latest in a series of improbable questions to emanate from the Garden State since Chris Christie took over as governor earlier this year. But Joe Scarborough raises it here and after watching his interview with the big man, you may begin to understand how Christie inspires the gypsy sentiment in conservatives’ hearts.