By Theodore King

-Why Romney Will Be Nominated and Lose

-Two Faced on Libya

-Nanny State Lighting

-Congressman Dan Boren

In early May, about the time the spring issue of this paper was going to press, President Obama gave the go-ahead to our special forces operating in Pakistan to raid the hideout of Osama bin Laden and kill him. This phenomenon reminded me of my late mother's Jimmy Carter moment: the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace accord signed by Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel on the south lawn of the White House, with President Carter presiding. This marvel caused my mother to give credit to President Carter for a treaty of peace between two nations that had been at war since Israel's founding in 1948. This was the one and only time my mother ever had anything positive to say about President Carter.

President Obama's giving the go-ahead to kill Osama bin Laden was my one and only Barack Obama moment. It would have been better had we seen photos of the body of bin Laden so as to quell conspiracy theories, but the powers that be deemed us too weak of heart, and the Muslim world too insane, to see the gory details of his death. Anyway, this was my Barack Obama moment.

Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn into office for a second term on January 20, 2013 because Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, and he will lose. Mitt Romney will be the nominee because it is his turn, and since 1960 the Republican party has always gone with the next in line. Some say that won't happen this time because of the Tea Party movement. Those who believe that are wrong. Ask ten members of the Tea Party whom they prefer for president in the primaries. Some will answer Herman Cain, others Michelle Bachmann, or Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. The moneyed people in the party who fund the campaigns will back Mitt Romney; and they will back him because they know it is his turn, and they want access should he by some fluke win. Most primary voters don't listen to talk radio, read conservative papers or blogs, or keep up on the candidates. Those voters are going to hear radio ads and see TV ads for Mitt Romney and will discern their choice by thinking: Romney, I've heard of him.

Look for former Gov. Frank Keating to endorse Mitt Romney. His reason is that he wants to be attorney general of the United States. That is why he endorsed John McCain in 2008. Senator Coburn also endorsed John McCain that year because Senator Coburn is un-predictable. Others as conservative and principled as Senator Coburn would have endorsed anyone other than John McCain.

Mitt Romney is a weak man. He embraced a state version of Obamacare as governor of Massachusetts before Obama was even in the White House. He believes in man-made global warming. Mitt Romney was pro-abortion during his entire career in Massachusetts, first as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994 against Ted Kennedy, and then as a candidate for Massachusetts governor in 2002. About 2006, he had a road to Des Moines, correction: road to Damascus, conversion to the pro-life side.

President Obama has a billion, yes a billion dollars, in his reelection war chest. A billion dollars and a compliant "mainstream" media will do a lot to convince the public, that among other things, their home mortgage isn't really under water, that their 401K is worth what is was five years ago, and that gasoline is too expensive, which is the fault of those evil oil companies.

The press will pull out all stops to defeat Romney, including making an issue of his Mormon faith. They will point out that the Mormons did not allow blacks into their group until 1978. This will put former Governor Romney on the defensive as he challenges a black man for the White House. My purpose is not to bash Mormonism but to warn you what will happen should Mitt Romney become the Republican nominee, which seems a certitude at this point.

We need a Thatcher moment for America. In 1979, Britain wasn't ready for change; they were desperate for change. Margaret Thatcher would have been un-electable at any other time, but that was 1979. The nation was in a deep recession if not depression. The British pound was very weak; taxes were around 97% of income; union strikes paralyzed the nation; trash wasn't being collected, and by the winter of 1978-79 grave diggers went on strike. When a nation cannot bury its dead, there is desperation.

Here in America in 2011, we are not at that point yet, but we soon may be. Only a strong candidate who is firm in his or her convictions can take on and defeat President Obama. The Republican party has a unique opportunity to nominate a real leader who could revive the now dormant Reagan revolution, and yet Mitt Romney will likely be the one to blow it for all, tragic.

On June 24th, the House voted down a resolution in support of the president's cowboy adventure in Libya. Where have we heard that line before? Resolution 68 by Florida Democrat Congressman Alcee Hastings stated Congress's support for our continued involvement in Libya. The vote was 295 against to 123 in favor. Congressmen Boren was the only member of the Oklahoma delegation to vote in favor of the resolution. Congressmen Cole, Lankford, Lucas, and Sullivan voted no.

And then there was a second vote supporting a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission against the Libyan government, and it also failed. Congress decided that to cut the funding was something that well...they just didn't have the courage to do. H.R. 2278 by Republican Congressman Thomas Rooney, also of Florida, was a bill to limit funding for the NATO mission in Libya, in other words, our military's involvement in Libya. It was rejected 238 to 180. I am sad to say that only Congressman Frank Lucas voted to limit funding. Congressmen Boren, Cole, Lankford, and Sullivan voted against H.R. 2278 that would have reined in the president's adventure in Libya. Only Congressmen Boren and Lucas were consistent votes on these issues. Boren is for the mission, and Lucas is opposed. Congressmen Cole, Lankford, and Sullivan are all two-faced on these issues. Note: Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann also voted against the resolution on our further involvement in Libya and then voted against the bill to cut off funding of the non-declared war.

H.R. 2417, Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, was introduced by Congressman Joe Barton of Texas in the House to overturn the 2007 law phasing out the old incandescent light bulbs, to be replaced by energy efficient bulbs, which is a topic discussed in my book, The War on Smokers and the Rise of the Nanny State, because this is an overreaching act by the federal government signed into law in 2007 by a pseudo conservative President George W. Bush. On July 12th, the vote was 233 to 193 and was short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage. All five members of the Oklahoma delegation voted to overturn the 2007 law.

Here is an excerpt from the AP story written by James Abrams that appeared on the MSNBC Web site:

"Their legislation would have kept the marketplace clear for the cheap, energy-wasting bulbs that have changed little since Thomas Edison invented them in 1879. For most Democrats, it's an exasperating debate that, just like the old incandescent bulbs being crowded out of the market, produces more heat than light."

The AP news story went on to quote Congressman Barton: ""If you are Al Gore and want to spend $10 for a light bulb, more power to you,' Barton said. He exaggerated the cost of most energy-efficient bulbs and neglected to mention that they last years longer than old incandescent bulbs, which convert about 90 percent of the energy they consume as electricity into heat, and only 10 percent into light."

What Mr. Abrams, who wrote this story, failed to mention is that if you drop and break one of the new bulbs, you cannot simply grab a broom and a dust pan as you can with the old incandescent bulbs. Why? Because the new bulbs, while more efficient, have mercury in them. Why aren't the supporters of the new bulbs asking themselves about the safety of our children? With an incandescent bulb you have only shards of glass; with the new bulbs you have broken glass and mercury on the floor. Remember: this vote wasn't about whether you may purchase the energy efficient bulb; this vote was about whether it is the government's right to tell you that you may not have a standard, cheap incandescent bulb.

In time, the new bulbs could become more competitive (not just in energy saved but price wise), and the market would work this one out without federal involvement. When was the last time you saw someone use a pay phone? I recently saw a man using one at a QuikTrip convenience store in Tulsa, and I had to do a double take. Congress didn't involve itself with what kind of phones people should use. The market decided that with the advent of cell phones. Congress was right in bringing this up for a vote and wrong for not mustering the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the 2007 law.

In June, second district Congressman Dan Boren dropped a real bombshell when he announced he would not seek another term in Congress and that he may seek a future office such as governor or a U.S. Senate seat. I think Dan Boren wants to "get outta Dodge" because he believes the next few years are going to be very difficult in Washington. Should he be in the thick of it as a Democrat member of Congress, he may harm his future political viability. The Democrats in Oklahoma are now fairly marginal; Dan Boren is their best, most electable hope for now. It is better for him to come home now, take some cushy job in the state, and plan his political future rather than be a part of the Obama apocalypse in Washington.