The only differences between many American political reporters and prostitutes is that prostitutes understand what type of business they are in and prostitutes provide something of value to the people who pay them.

One of reasons Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney is because most political reporters at the Main Stream Media (MSM) are essentially prostitutes. They are partisan Obamista Democrats whose motto is "ours is not to question why. Ours is but to lie and lie." They apparently believe their duty is to make their fellow Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad. If wealthy Republicans want to improve their chances of winning, they will need to invest in media companies and replace the partisan Democrats with either Republicans or with real journalists who believe they have a duty to pressure politicians regardless of party into being truthful.

American reporters should know better than to automatically believe any politicians, particularly those running for president. It wasn't that long ago that President Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with an intern and President George W. Bush was claiming that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. They certainly weren't the first two presidents to lie. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the assistance he provided to the British prior to American entry into World War II while he was plotting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to get the United States into the war.

American reporters continue to publish stories supporting the late Enron Corporation's global warming scam even though the documents indicating Enron's role in setting up the scam have been available for years. Reporters potentially have access to studies by scientists who question the claims about global warming, but refuse to consult the critics of global warming. Reporters ignore the fact that those who want to profit from trading carbon credits are likely to spend large sums to elect candidates like Barack Obama who support their agenda.

Real journalists recognize that when politicians and government officials try to keep documents secret, it is often to cover up damaging information. For example, in the1960 presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy refused to release his medical records while falsely claiming he didn't have any health problems. We didn't learn until many years later that Kennedy was afflicted with Addison's disease, a disorder that can cause a fatal drop in blood pressure.

When we elect a president we are really hiring a president. We should have access to the same information an employer might request from a potential employee. The news media should seek that information on our behalf.

Unfortunately, most American journalists don't care about whether or not candidates are truthful about their background. For example, there have been cases in the past of journalists who have lied about the education. Thus, it would be reasonable to require presidential "job applicants" to make copies of their college records available to those who decide who to hire for the job.

Barack Obama claims to be healthy like Kennedy did, but refused to make his medical records public to confirm his claim. Obama's body is consistent with the type of body that individuals with potentially fatal Marfan's syndrome often have. Those with Marfan's syndrome can suffer from sudden heart attacks. How can we be sure he doesn't have Marfan's syndrome if he won't make his medical records public.

The presidency has citizenship and a minimum age requirement. Thus it is reasonable to require those applying for the job of President of the United States to submit a birth certificate to confirm he meets the citizenship requirement and is old enough to qualify for the job. However, MSM journalists act like the issue isn't important. They continued to ignore the issue even after Obama posted an obviously forged birth certificate on line.

The forgery lists his "race" as "African" even though the term "African" cannot be used to indicate a specific race. Africa contains two visibly different groups of people. Those who live north of the Sahara Desert have light colored complexions. Those who live south of the Sahara have dark complexions.

The use of the word "African" instead of the term used at the time "Negro[the Spanish word for black]" could indicate Obama has been keeping the document secret for a reason other than where he was born. When Obama was born southern police were still beating civil rights demonstrators. If Obama's complexion was light enough to pass for Hawaiian, his mother might have taken advantage of giving birth in Hawaii to list her son as whatever term was used for native Hawaiians. Obama might have decided to keep the document secret because he wanted to use his complexion to appeal to black voters and didn't want them to think he was really an Hawaiian.

Obama's decision to keep his birth certificate secret might involve an old dictator's trick. A dictator wanting to determine how loyal his supporters are may say or do something questionable to determine who will support him regardless of what he has said or done.

The tendency of the MSM to bias news in favor of their Democratic Party has increased the degree of division between Democratic activists and Republican activists. Those who realize they cannot trust the MSM turn to Republican organizations that also present biased information.

The current situation with the media isn't new. In the 19th Century Noah Webster observed: “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."

Mark Twain also had a low opinion of journalists. " That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."

Granting United Nations membership to the Palestinians would create a vary dangerous precedent. The Palestinians aren't the only ethnic group that desire to have their own country independent of the one in which they live. Nor are they the only group that has used violence to try to gain independence.

The Kurds have long desired to set up a country they would call Kurdistan including land currently a part of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. If the U.N. grants membership to the Palestinians, shouldn't it also grant membership to Kurdistan? The Kurds have their own culture and language.

The Palestinians are a collection of Arab peoples who happen to live within the boundaries of the nation of Israel. They are called Palestinians not because they have a unique culture like the Kurds, but because they aren't Jewish. The term "Palestine" was used by the Romans to refer to a geographic region rather than any specific ethnic group.

Might the area of Chechnya also qualify for U.N. membership? What about the Basque region of Spain? Could Tibetans argue that they should have U.N. membership even though the Chinese currently occupy the country?

If the Palestinians should get their own country because they are Muslims, what about the Uighur Muslims in China?

Many other countries have groups that might want their own country if they thought it were possible, particularly in those areas of the world where European nations arbitrarily forced different ethnic groups to live in the same country. Granting U.N. membership to the Palestinians would encourage members of these groups to develop nationalist aspirations.

There is nothing special about the Palestinians. Many groups of people would like to have their own nations. The U.N. cannot arbitrarily grant membership to the Palestinians and ignore the aspirations of the Kurds, Basques, etc.

Nations that are considering voting for Palestinian membership should make sure they don't have groups that might make a similar request.

Over the last several thousand years regions of the Middle East have been controlled by whatever ethnic groups have been strongest at the time. Some groups such as the Persians and Assyrians have established empires. Others such as the Israelites have been content to control only small areas. The current situation in Israel has been occurred many times in the past and will likely to be repeated in one country or another in the future.

The U.N. should not attempt to arbitrarily adjust national boundaries or decide which groups should have their own countries. Many of the ethnic problems in Asia and Africa are due in part to the arbitrary national boundaries imposed by imperialistic European nations If the Palestinians, Kurds or other groups want their own nations they should handle their own situations rather having the U.N. impose a solution from outside.

The ancestors of today's Europeans couldn't understand the significance of what they were doing when they vandalized Rome. The modern descendants of those Vandals are capable of understanding the significance of their actions.

The Vandals who sacked Rome had nothing to lose from the destruction. The Vandals who are sacking Libya have a lot to lose from the destruction.

The destruction of the Libyan military is creating an opportunity for al Qaeda to take over Libya. Al Qaeda is a long time adversary of Muammar Qaddafi, but had been too weak in Libya to challenge him.

NATO's attacks on Qaddafi's military are rapidly changing that balance. Afghan war veteran Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi is already taking advantage of the situation to lead the anti-Qaddafi effort in Darnah. He potentially could use his combat experience to take over the rebel movement.

If al Qaeda takes over Libya, it will have access to oil money and perhaps gain an opportunity to blackmail European governments to get out of Afghanistan. If al Qaeda takes advantage of NATO's overthrow of Qaddafi to take over Libya many NATO leaders will join their Arab counterparts in the unemployment line.

Some might even face criminal prosecution for treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy). In the U.S. a latter day Joe McCarthy might emerge and use the incident to attack individuals who had nothing to due with the decision.

British Prime Minister David Cameron would likely be classified with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who gave in to Adolf Hitler's demands to obtain what he called "peace in our time".

NATO is risking creating anarchy. Anarchy tends to produce tyrants The difficulties of replacing anarchy after the fall of a tyrant can produce a new tyrant like Napoleon or Lenin. Anarchy in Libya could also cause a cutoff of oil until someone restores order.

The U.S. is still in Iraq because of the difficulties of restoring a stable government. The American presence prevented al Qaeda from taking over Iraq as it attempted to do even with the American presence.

NATO needs to be preparing to move a peacekeeping force into Libya to replace the government NATO is destroying. Marines from NATO nations should be on the ships offshore now or be in route to them. American paratroopers in Italy and the paratroopers of other NATO members should be loading planes with equipment and preparing their gear so they can take off at any time. Turkey would be the best choice to control post-Qaddafi Libya because it's a Muslim nation. .

Have the Allies decided who will be in charge of preserving order and providing government services between the time Muammar Qaddafi is overthrown and a new government can be established?

Democracies don't miraculously appear after the overthrow of tyrants. Working out differences about what type of government is desired takes time. Someone has to run the interim government until differences can be resolved like the U.S attempted to do in Iraq.

Iraq isn't the only country that has had trouble developing a democratic government to replace a tyrant. Examples from European history demonstrate that the difficulties of establishing democratic government to replace tyrants.

The overthrow of the French monarchy in the late 18th Century was followed by various governments until a new strongman named Napoleon was able to establish a stable government. He then decided to expand the size of his empire to include most of Europe into Russia.

The fall of the Russian monarchy late during World War I also eventually produced a tyrant with a desire for empire. An initial attempt at democracy failed and the country descended into chaos with the communist party led by Lenin eventually conquering the country. His successor Joseph Stalin used the situation after World War II to expand the country's boundaries into Eastern Europe.

The Allied attack on the Libyan military means it will not be available to reestablish order even if people would accept its leaders after their efforts to keep Qaddafi in office. The problems other governments in the area are having mean they cannot assist with reestablishing order in Libya. One or more of the Allies will have send in a caretaker force to run things.

Qaddafi has many loyal supporters, particularly among those who have benefited from his rule, who might use guerrilla tactics against the interim government as happened in Iraq. Al Qaeda will certainly be interested in attempting to take advantage of the situation and use terrorism to force the interim government out as happened in Iraq.

The lawlessness in Somalia demonstrates what can happen without a government capable of establishing order.

Barack Obama who ran on a platform of ending his predecessor's wars has apparently decided he wants his own war. As candidate Obama, he felt Congress should have a role in such decisions. As President O'Bomber, he thinks he can ignore Congress.

Like his predecessors O'Bomber is starting out with a bombing campaign. He hasn't said whether he will send Marines back to the shores of Tripoli if the bombing campaign fails to cause a surrender. Bombing didn't produce a surrender in Vietnam and Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi doesn't seem any more likely to relinquish power because of a bombing campaign than Saddam Hussein was.

Barack O'Bomber claims he is acting because the Libyan government has attacked those protesting the government, but Libya isn't the only government to use violence to put down protests.

Syria has been accused of using violence against protesters. Will O'Bomber also attack Syria? It would be easy considering we already have troops in neighboring Iraq. They could be moved out of Iraq and into Syria.

Will O'Bomber attack Iran which reportedly has been putting down mass protests? He could use it as an excuse to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Prior to the election O'Bomber said he considered Iran a "tiny country" even though it's the 17th most populous nation in the world with a population is 78% that of Nazi Germany, a country which conquered Europe. from the Atlantic's to near Moscow.

China has killed protesters before. Does that mean the U.S. should consider attacking China?

I'm worried that if Gaddafi does give in to the bombing campaign, O'Bomber and the other Western Imperialists will think they can do the same thing in any country with a form of government they disapprove of. That is if they are really motivated by Gaddafi's treatment of his subjects rather than his oil.

If NATO is really concerned about injustice, why didn't it intervene in Darfur?

If O'Bomber succeeds in destroying the Libyan military will he or the Europeans spend years reestablishing order setting up a new government? Or will they let it become a lawless country like Somalia"

The most disturbing aspect of O'Bomber's action is his failure to consult Congress like Lyndon Johnson did before bombing North Vietnam and George W. Bush did before bombing Saddam Hussein. Both of those presidents took the lead in getting the U.S. involved in a war. O'Bomber seems to be following the orders of the European governments who get their oil from Libya.

Regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject. Unless he formally renounced that citizenship he may still be a British subject and may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya.

Those who like to protest America involvement in foreign wars need to start protesting now instead of waiting until the Marines land in Tripoli.