By Katherine Fry, CEO/President Mediafy Communications Group

As an American, I am well aware of the issues with immigrants and the border. I have heard on the news every day, recently, that concentration camps exist there. As I am from German ancestry, and a person, I am well aware that concentration camps are unacceptable and inhumane, bringing misery to humanity. I am also aware that the Germans perpetrated a huge disservice to mankind, and as a result, lost the right to have a standing army. Concentration camps are wrong.

As an American, I am aware that native Americans existed on the American continent long before we did. As a result, I am also aware of the argument that they, therefore, have more of a right to this continent than we do, as we are simply the descendants of European immigrants.

In 1776, the American colonies of Great Britain broke away from the motherland and declared a new country. Subsequently, we became the United States of America. To some, we represented freedom fighters; to others, we represented usurpers of land from an indigenous people. In reality, we represented a group of individuals in need of food, land, and resources. Royalty did not move to the Americas-starving peasants did-and starving people will do just about anything to survive.

Effectively, immigrants stole land from the native Americans, and created a government by the Europeans, for the Europeans. Usurpers stole land from an indigenous people and created a most excellent form of government. It is so excellent, in fact, that indigenous people from other parts of this continent wish to move here and benefit from its trappings. They too want the benefits of land ownership, capitalism, and freedom. But how can an indigenous person claim that they want to benefit from their conquerors? Does this not create a conflict?

The reality is, starving Europeans conquered the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Whether in Vermont, Seattle, or Texas, we conquered them. Native Americans have subsequently received a raw deal in the USA, and they will continue to receive a raw deal when other indigenous peoples attempt to come here from Middle or South America. We conquered the original peoples of this land and created a country called the USA. They wish to come here because it is better than the governments they themselves have set up in Middle and South America. What we have created is very special, regardless of its legitimacy or fairness. It is so special, in fact, that, the indigenous people from surrounding areas wish to partake in it.

Today, Mexico and South America are in turmoil. Socialist experiments, like the one in Venezuela, have led to civil war. The violent cartels in Mexico have led to individuals wanting to leave their country, and move to America, where the cartels have little to no power. After all, America is, for many, a dreamland of unlimited resources and freedom.

Regardless of our ominous beginnings, as conquerers, who created a government by the people and for the people, we should take better care of individuals seeking asylum. Putting them in concentration camps, separating children from their families, and failing to provide food and water to individuals in need is simply inhumane. Regardless of the sins we committed in the beginning of this country, we owe our fellow human beings seeking asylum at least the basic necessities of life. Anything less is simply shameful. After all, we have created the wealthiest country in the world.

As the descendant of European immigrants, I feel empathy for the plight of Middle and South Americans seeking asylum here. I feel very sorry that they are starving, or the victims of violent and inhumane drug cartels. But I am a part of a group of people who came here out of desperation, and who conquered the indigenous people of this continent. I am not German any longer. I am an American, and I love this country. It is all I know, and in order to protect this country, we must have borders. However, this country can have borders and still be humane. Hopefully, our current administration will begin practicing the empathy that we as Europeans failed to receive from our original home countries, so many years ago.

By Katherine Fry, CEO/President Mediafy Communications Group

White privilege is a complicated truth in our society. To some, it is seen as direct advantages given to Caucasians over other ethnicities. These advantages can exist in the business world, the medical field, or everyday life. Some believe that white people are given more opportunities to prevail because of white privilege. While white privilege may not be intentional, it is nevertheless a very real issue. Throughout our country’s history, it has become embedded in our society, and it is only through the acknowledgment that such an issue can be overcome.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the term white privilege generally referred to both the systemic and legal advantages provided to white people within the United States. Examples include the right to purchase a home in the neighborhood of one’s choice, citizenship and the right to vote. The persistence of discrimination after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act led to “white privilege” being interpreted as something more psychological—a subconscious prejudice bolstered by white people’s lack of awareness of holding such power. White privilege could be found in daily transactions and in the ability of white people to navigate their professional and personal environments with relative ease. (1)

Contemporary dictionaries define “white privilege” as “inherent advantages possessed by a white person on the basis of their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice.” (2) White privilege is often perpetuated in a nonchalant manner by perpetrators who are often unaware of the motivations or results of their actions. Essentially, it seems to just happen, making the existence of white privilege very difficult to prove, much less overcome.

How do we as a society bring the issue of white privilege to the forefront, when people are not even aware they are abiding by it? One simply can not assume that a person’s achievements are because of the color of their skin. Additionally, It is often incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to confront individuals when one suspects it is happening. The more complicated truth is that white privilege is unconsciously enjoyed while consciously perpetuated. It is simultaneously embedded into American life while also overtly on the surface.

There are no straightforward answers for how American society can overcome white privilege.. However, one can start by acknowledging it within oneself and one’s own actions. White individuals can begin by analyzing their own actions and motivations when providing favoritism or privileges to those who are a part of their world. This one small step can then lead to larger social changes over time.

White privilege represents a complicated societal truth. Some view it as direct advantages provided to Caucasians at the expense of other ethnicities. White privilege while not necessarily intentional, nevertheless encompasses a very real issue within the United States. It is interwoven into our society, and as a result, its machinations are invisible to many. As a result, one can assert that acknowledgment represents the first step in overcoming this issue. This one small step can then lead to a giant leap for mankind.

  1. https://www.tolerance.org/
  2. https://legacy.drphil.com/videos/suggested-solutions-for-overcoming-the-white-privilege-problem/

AOC, Ted Cruz, and a Bi-Partisan Solution

By Katherine Fry, CEO/President Mediafy Communications Group

The internet went abuzz today with news that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Ted Cruz bipartisanly agreed to lobby for a bill that would make birth control pills available over the counter. This is significant because these two individuals represent different parties with very different philosophies regarding reproduction.

Ted Cruz represents the Christian right. He asserts that if a woman falls pregnant, the child she is carrying is ordained to be here, regardless of the circumstances leading to conception. He argues that abortion is out of the question, and the child must be born. Solutions include giving the child up for adoption, or caring for the child oneself. As a conservative Republican, he doesn’t feel that the government should pay for the raising of unplanned children. Instead, he advocates abstinence or birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancies before they occur.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a feminist who represents individuals who are left of center. As a result, her belief structure advocates the rights of women over unborn fetuses. Consequently, she is in favor of women taking over their reproductive systems and preventing or terminating pregnancies as they wish. Under such a philosophy, women are the masters of their reproductive systems, dictating to their uteruses what will occur, and not the other way around. Such power allows women to plan to have a family and keep their careers. Furthermore, it advocates women becoming the architects of their own lives, with something as significant as having a child not being left up to chance.

Despite their party and philosophical differences, AOC and Cruz agree on one thing- that it is preferable to prevent pregnancies before they occur. They have found common ground in advocating a bill that allows the availability of birth control over the counter (OTC).

The question then presents itself-why would anyone be opposed to the birth control pill being available over the counter? As an informed consumer, I am well aware that the medical doctors of this world have fought very hard to faze out alternative forms of health care, including OTC remedies. Resultingly, those without health care insurance or money to pay the doctor’s bill for an abortion either end up continuing a pregnancy without doctors supervision, or having an abortion at the hands of an unlicensed provider. Both of these alternatives are unfortunate. It is when faced with such an unfortunate lack of choice that bipartisan options begin to present themselves. In this case, the most obvious bipartisan option is OTC birth control.

Why is over the counter birth control the most obvious bipartisan option? The answer is because it’s affordable, effective, and overwhelmingly easy to implement. If women are easily capable of obtaining OTC birth control, the need for abortions will exponentially go down. The controversy regarding whether life is being ended becomes largely irrelevant, because the OTC birth control solution, in many cases, will prevent unplanned pregnancies from occurring in the first place. It truly represents a win-win for everyone.

OTC birth control represents a bi-partisan solution to the abortion controversy. In short, it will prevent many unplanned pregnancies from occurring by providing a cheap and effective birth control solution. Ted Cruz and AOC represent two often opposing parties joining together to agree upon a meaningful and effective solution for women. Should this bill pass, it will represent a coup for all women in the USA, regardless of their political affiliation.

How the Proposed Mexican Tariff Reveals the Hypocrisy of the Left

By Katherine Fry, CEO/President Mediafy Communications Group

“Tax the rich!” has been the rallying cry for the Democratic party for many years now. Many of them argue that, by selling goods and services, the rich are not only exploiting the labor of the poor, but also overcharging for goods that should be provided as a right! Taxing the rich is the Democrat’s way of leveling the playing field and giving the money back to the poor the money that they effectively argue is already rightfully theirs.

On the same token, the majority of Democrats are opposed to corporations outsourcing labor. When American corporations outsource, they are taking jobs away from American citizens for the purpose of benefiting their own bottom line. Goods and services are often cheaper in foreign countries, mostly due to the lack of regulatory agencies such as OSHA and the EPA. In purchasing goods and services abroad, corporate leaders are effectively bypassing US labor laws and regulations, at the expense of Americans.

President Trump has been in the news most recently threatening to impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming in from Mexico. Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan argues “the Trump strategy does little to address the illegal flow of migrants, and it will only hurt workers in American states.” (1) “The Michigan Democrat says he’s especially concerned about Detroit automakers that have major production facilities in Mexico.” (1) This senator is concerned that an additional corporate tax will place an undue burden on corporations, leading workers to lose their jobs. But is this not what Republicans have said all along-that taxing the rich does not benefit the poor but instead hurts them?

By opposing the tariff, Democrats are playing right into the Republicans’ hands. Republicans typically oppose additional taxation on corporations, arguing that doing so overall hurts the economy. Regarding the proposed Mexican tariff, which is truly a corporate tax, Democrats are revealing that they feel the same, and instead favor a more laissez-faire economy.

Trump, who ran for President as a Republican, used to be a registered Democrat. His move of placing a tax or tariff on Mexican goods is undoubtedly a Democratic one. So then why do the majority of Democrats disagree with it? One can argue that any proposal made by Trump at this time will be opposed by the Democrats merely because of his unpopularity with them.

The Mexican tariff proposed by Trump reveals the hypocrisy of the American Left. How can a party, supposedly based on supporting the laborers of the USA, oppose a tariff that would almost certainly create more American jobs? How can a party that advocates heavier corporate taxation, vehemently oppose a proposed corporate tax on Mexican goods? The answer most likely lies in the supposition that they oppose it simply because Trump proposed it. No matter what Trump proposes, he simply cannot win with Democrats. By opposing Trump on the Mexican tariff, Democrats are essentially playing right into Republican hands, and asserting that they too believe in a more laissez-faire economy. If this trend continues, one can assert that the only two parties truly dominating the American landscape are not Republicans and Democrats, but instead, those who are for or against Trump.

  1. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/05/sen-gary-peters-sees-bipartisan-opposition-to-trump-mexico-tariffs.html