Surprise, Surprise the NYTimes has a war against women going on. Females who want power are to be demolished. A while back, the NYTimes did a HIT JOB on Meg Witman, painting her as a woman undeserving of public office because she has money--the rich Bi%$h shtick...snore. As if she has not earned every penny. But even more alarming is the sexism and hypocrisy of the HIT JOB the NYTimes did on July 16th to Senate candidate, Linda McMahon.

Remember when liberal media called Hillary Clinton a "big Fucking Whore." And a "White Bitch." And that a man should be "take [Clinton] into a room and only he comes out." In order of citation: Air America, the New York Timesm, and MSNBC. Remember when Letterman called Palin a slut and liberal media wanted to rape her or have a group of black men gang rape her? ( Sandra Bernhard’s lewd comments calling Palin a "whore" and a "bitch" and then warned Palin that she ought not come to NYC or "if Palin ever visited New York, she would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers.")

The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.

The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

From the NYTimes:

Why would the White House, using former President Bill Clinton as its agent, offer Mr. Sestak a job on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board for which he was ineligible as a sitting House member? (It takes about 30 seconds to Google those rules, approved in 1993 by President Clinton himself.) {And }Why would President Obama’s White House waffle and obfuscate about the matter for three months...."

Yes, why?

The Times likes to boast on the TV ads they run that they have “the best journalists in the world.” They double down on this shill, saying it is impossible to dispute that statement. You know, I would say they indeed have some of the most biased journalists in the world, right up there with Fox and perhaps the state-controlled journos in Russia. Yet…What I’d like to know is this: why do the bestiest journalists in the world use the term womb to refer to uterus when talking about abortion?

After a year in office, Mr. Obama has managed to do what every modern president may have wanted to do but never did: effectively shut out the reporters who work just a few feet from the Oval Office. He has not had a full-scale White House news conference in seven months, the longest such stretch by any president in a decade. And he has made a practice of not taking reporters’ questions at day-to-day events, as other presidents did.

The media figures if it can fool us and sell us the empty suit that is Barack, then they can fool us into believing ObamaCaid will benefit the majority in the long run.
In their OP-ED the Times writes that Obama and Democrats “failed to explain why reform will” part the red sea…etcetera, ho hum, etcetera. Dumb ol’ hicks that wez is, wez need Daddy Obama and Daddy NYTimes to override what the public’s wishes and shove this mess down our throats!
And Paul Krugman urges Congress and Obama to ignore the will of the peeps and pass ObamaCaid already! Check this bomb from Krugman:

The New York Times if scared out of their wits. Why? Because if women don’t vote on choice they might well vote on fiscal policy. FemiSex has pointed out numerous times just how eagerly the media (especially!! The Times) fires up the pot on abortion, in an attempt to keep the topic evergreen. This week it took a jury 37 minutes to convict the whack job that is Scott Roeder of first degree murder in the killing of hero George R. Tiller. Rather than admit the lack of any dissonance in convicting Killer Roeder, this is what the Times wrote in response to the hasty verdict: