Obama’s War On Women

During the presidential campaign in 2008, then Senator Obama promised if elected to have the most open and transparent administration in the nation’s history. One can debate whether this promise was or was not kept. Another promise was to upgrade the status of treatment and the stature of women in all facets of life. However, as it pertains to American women not being treated as second class citizens, the administration’s transparency allows us to see clearly this promise was not kept. So begins the war.

Most wars are not fought in one battle with the victor taking the spoils, thus ending the war. Several fronts become zones of conflict designed to gain advantage over the enemy. This war is no different. The smaller skirmishes are purposely waged to distract and/or diminish his opponent’s capacity before the final surge to victory. The zones of conflict in this war have been distracting, and while noteworthy, have failed to deliver the desired result. There was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, going the distance for Sandra Fluke’s birth control pills and numerous speeches with promises and praises regarding the role of women in daily life. These are but a few of the salvos being launched in this campaign of war. The resolve of the women targeted in the onslaught remains strong.

The major key to victory is to remain on offense and keep the enemy guessing as to your next move. In Obama’s war, his strategy since the beginning of his assault has been known. One need only return to the campaign of 2008.  The pledge to have an ‘open and transparent administration’ is his unprotected flank. Start with his statement offered during the incident in Florida between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Those now famous or infamous words, “…if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,” provides an opening to turn the tide and move closer to victory for women. When this incident occurred and citizens chose sides of that debate, there were facts as well as emotions on display while the case was adjudicated. Of the more emotional charged topics was the appearance of Mr. Martin; specifically, his attire. The hoodie became the symbol most rallied around to show solidarity. The hoodie did not come to existence because of this tragedy, but it gained in popularity among supporters of Martin. It is now standard attire for several street gangs and rap music performers. The connection to the war on women is found the lyrics of certain hip-hop artists and the machismo boasted by gang members regarding their relationships with women. If The President accepts the notion of the hoodie symbol as it was portrayed in support of Trayvon, then, he must accept all that accompanies the symbol based on his aforementioned quote. Women are by no means uplifted by “gangsta” behavior, therefore his speeches and pledges of support show clearly the angle of attack.

Second, victory requires the commanding officer to surround himself with like minded subordinate officers to help execute his war strategy. It is here where the attack strategy is formulated. The cabinet secretaries and department heads are not only advocates, but enforcers of his battle plans. Through HHS directives for instance, how many female babies have been aborted? Is the goal to reduce the female population thereby reducing the chance for opposition? What about the push for lowering training standards for women in the military. If women are unprepared for the rigors of war, they become easier targets. Surely a commander would demand his troops be fully prepared for battle. Relaxing security of the border, home operating base, is advice not conducive to victory. Why then is it being followed? This policy will make all citizens, especially women and children, vulnerable to attack or kidnapping.

So we see the war plans through the transparency of policy designed to “fundamentally transform The United States of America.” The overt assault on the women of America cannot be attributed to poor advice. It is commander-in-chief who gives the marching orders. Now a call to arms for the sake of the women, and for the sake of the country, must go out. A ‘fundamental change’ is not what is needed, but a return to the fundamentals of the founding of the nation, a battle plan not subject to the whims of an individual; a counter attack with proven results.