The events that unfolded last week in Washington, D.C., will stain the fabric of our democracy for the rest of our days. The images of insurrection in the Capitol are as much our legacy now as putting a man on the moon. It’s a stark contrast of what happens when we choose to embrace what divides us rather than what unites us.

There’s no doubt we all want the same things. We want the satisfaction from a good day’s work. We want a warm bed to sleep in. We all want safety and security for our friends and families. We all want our children to enjoy success greater than our own.

While our opinions differ on the best way to achieve these goals, time and time again reaching consensus and moving forward together has proven to be the most effective option.

In times of tragedy, like a death or natural disaster, we come together to mourn, recover and rebuild. In this moment, our national tragedy is manmade, but the solution is still unity and together we can mourn, recover and rebuild.

I’m proud of the pragmatism Kansas Farm Bureau employs to advocate for the interest of farmers and ranchers. We have and will continue to work with leaders of all stripes to advance our grassroots policy and organizational goals.

I must admit, I’d much rather work with leaders willing to tell hard, uncomfortable truths than ones who would placate me with promises that will never be realized. One of the best things we can do right now is demand truth from our elected representatives, no matter how unsavory it may be. We can overcome a difference of opinions, but we will be sunk by differing versions of reality.

When our forefathers declared their independence at the birth of our nation, it’s said Benjamin Franklin said, “we must all hang together, or ... we shall all hang separately.” For nearly 250 years we’ve been strengthened by our unity and built one of the greatest societies of the world. For it to continue, we must choose to see the best in others. We must strive for consensus in areas where it’s obtainable, and we must continue debating in good faith in those were we can’t.

Last week provided a compelling example. A few politicians entertained the idea the election results could be challenged. A mob stormed the Capitol in hopes of changing those results. In the end, the mob lost, and reality was certified. That result isn’t guaranteed in the future, and we now must choose if we want to continue on a path that will fray the fabric that holds us together or if we will rise to the occasion and let the stain fade as we have with other dark days in our history.

As individuals, it’s our duty to listen to each other if we want to mend and heal our nation. If we do this together today, I can promise you tomorrow will be brighter in our United States.

“Insight” is a weekly column published by Kansas Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization whose mission is to strengthen agriculture and the lives of Kansans through advocacy, education and service.

(54) comments


Republicans continue saying covid is fake and masks don't work, Biden was elected by cheating, and saying he will never be their president while demanding unity... lol. ok.


If all the bakeries are privately owned, and wish to refuse making Trump cakes based on their sincerely held beliefs, who are you to stop them? Maybe Republicans shouldn't have set the precedent that allowed bakeries to discriminate in the first place...

Still want to get rid of section 230? Removing 230 will force bakeries to not only refuse gay wedding cakes but also a ton of other cakes.


Actually, section 230 has to do with communications ONLY. Not bakers. It provides immunity to social media companies against being sued over the content on their site. So in other words, they can allow anyone to print (with just a few restrictions) anything on their sites, and they cannot be held liable for it.

Perhaps they SHOULDN'T have passed it in the first place. But it wasn't just Republicans. It was created by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA). So you should correct your statement to say perhaps both the Republicans AND the Democrats shouldn't have passed it in the first place.


It's very obvious 230 has nothing to do with bakers, lol. It's called a metaphor...

It's not surprising someone who is both "anti-anti-fascist" and "not fascist" would want to remove 230... Removing section 230 removes free speech and censors the press. Removing section 230 would make Twitter liable for what Trump or anyone else says on their platform. Trump wants it removed so he will be able to censor what he labels as "fake news", end of story. The fact you feel it shouldn't have ever been passed in the first place speaks volumes. Any censorship with the exception of inciteful hate speech is a bad thing in my opinion.

I don't feel Trump's tweets incited the riots, and I disagree with Twitter suspending his account, (even though I find it funny) but Twitter is a privately owned company just like the bakery, and has the right to run their business as they see fit. Removing section 230 would clear the way for gays to sue the baker. "Metaphorically" of course.


Apparently you missed the part where I said "I don't know that I'm in favor of overturning it myself".


"I don't feel Trump's tweets incited the riots". And yet that is the entire reason for impeachment. So you disagree with impeachment? I mean, we already know the first time was based on a total lie/sham that was cooked up for purely political purposes. Appears this one is too.


If you think there are NO fascist elements that align with the Democratic party, then that too, speaks volumes. By your own definition above, strict control of society, strict control of economy, and suppression of opposition. But as I've said.... fascism is a term that really had to do with militaristic control, to maintain an army ready at a moment's notice. Not really applicable to today, to either party, although many try to claim it is. And you didn't read very close my stance on 230. The WHOLE POINT IS... which you just seem to be consistently missing, is I AGREE with "Any censorship with the exception of inciteful hate speech is a bad thing". MY PROBLEM is it OBVIOUSLY is not applied evenly. Nor is the fallout or reaction to it. You don't even feel Trumps tweets incited rioting. But thats the narrative being pushed 24/7. As I said elsewhere here, by that standard, then we have just as much right to impeach both Biden and Harris the second they take office. I can lay out a case (as I have) where their comments have been every bit as inciteful as "march peacefully and make your voices heard".... which apparently is impeachable. The irony of the party that claims one of their basic platforms is equality.... except when they choose not to.


And the entire complaint about 230 isn't the content they ban - its the unevenness the use when applying that ban. AND... the fact that they are now monopolies. I don't know that I'm in favor of overturning it myself. That's debatable. Perhaps an independent 3rd party needs to write their algorithms. You know, like they would ban hate speech by the left just as much as hate speech on the right. Like when Iran tweets for the destruction of Israel they would apply the same standards to it as well. And take a good look at their definition of hate speech. As I've stated here, saying "march peacefully and make your voices heard" is apparently hate speech, while alot of what they allow from the left I can't even print here. How about the same standards for everyone?


A monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."

Theres no monopoly on social media platforms... there are way too many. I could agree a 3rd party could be useful to oversee things though.


I would respectfully disagree on the social media monopoly. Google/Twitter managed to shut down their real only competition (Parler). Sure there are others out there. And their market share amounts to...... ??? Monopoly doesn't mean you are the only one. There can be plenty of others. Its the percentage of the market share that matters.


And for the record, I don't agree with 1 company refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding any more than I agree with another company refusing to bake a cake for Republicans.

Hollowed Ground

The SC has never said bakeries or any other business can discriminate. In the case of the homophobic baker, they simply sent the case back through the state process. Borat has a good scene where a baker immediately complies with a request to put "Jews Will Not Replace Us" on a cake. No doubt a Republican baker.


Remind me again which party it was giving all the anti-Jewish anti-Semitic speeches during the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.


Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Sounds about right.


"Suppression of opposition". Yep, sounds about right. Google, Twitter, Facebook. Their poster children.


Think of Twitter as a christian bakery and Trump as a gay wedding cake. Private companies have the right to refuse service based on their sincerely held beliefs, right? Get rid of section 230, right?


So what if that bakery is a monopoly? That person also has the right to take their business elsewhere. But what if that bakery shuts down all the other bakeries that don't agree with their sincerely held beliefs?


Which of these more closely aligns with "strong regimentation of society and of the economy". Higher taxes and more regulations, or lower taxes and less regulation? And which parties would those be that align more closely with each of those?


Its ironic that Democrats (in general) want larger government and more power over people's lives, while Republicans (in general) favor smaller government and individualism. (Yes, these are general statements, with exceptions, but in general, that is much of the difference).

So which one of the two above more closely aligns with "strong regimentation of society and of the economy"? (Along with the obvious oppression of opposition, which we are currently witnessing in unbelievable amounts).

That's the playbook. Whatever you are guilty of, accuse the other side of it.

If you want suppression and control of economy and personal lives, accuse the other side of fascism.

If you are lining your pockets with ties to China, if you cancel a European missile defense agreement that makes Russia extremely happy, and causes those European countries to complain you are bowing too much to Russia's demands, accuse the other side of Russian collusion.

If you complain every single election about voter suppression, then when voter fraud complaints are made against you, dismiss it.

The last three times a Republican has been elected president -- Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 -- Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In the 2005 vote forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours. But that was praised by democratic leaders. They never complained that democracy or the constitution was under attack. So why, when they worry so much about voters being disenfranchised and disillusioned, do they so fervently ignore and push aside any whistleblower complaints, as well as decry objections in Congress that they have done repeatedly?


"Whatever you are guilty of, accuse the other side of it."

You still haven't said you are against fascism... and you're accusing anti-fascists of being fascists...

Voter fraud complaints have been dismissed by several courts, and several Judges appointed by Trump himself... because there is no actual proof, just a party of sore losers. The American Justice system requires proof.


I am against fascism. I am also against antifa because many of their methods a fascist. Ironic. Fascism is a term that was more applicable to a military state, and I think its thrown around way, way too much these days. By both sides. It really doesn't apply in the same way it did at that time.

Yes, many cases were dismissed for lack of proof. Hard to get proof when you're banned from being close enough (which is against the law) or you can't take pictures because that is illegal also. But many were dismissed for other reasons. Too late. No standing. (Still can't figure that one out. I guess it means you have to show harm to yourself. So if you witness another person being murdered, or a bank being robbed, but you were not harmed, or it wasn't your bank, do you have standing?) In Wisconsin when the case was turned down 4 to 3 the Chief Justice (who was one of the 3) wrote a very scathing dissension joined by the other 2 against the majority.

You want proof? Go watch the video of the lady buying votes in Nevada with the Biden-Harris van in the background. The American Justice system has proof there and completely ignores it. Or the rapper in Georgia that offered a free Tesla to voters for voting. Is he being prosecuted?

Gary Lukert

And, this is EXACTLY where the REPUBLICAN Party is today.


Sorry, I meant to add this to the last post. More from Maxine Waters:

“The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the President, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’”

This is a CNN article. Then, later on in the same article, the writer states:

"Waters, however, did not call for physical harm to the officials or harassment against Trump’s supporters."

Maybe this is just one tiny example of many why people don't trust CNN.


Was Maxine Waters inciting violence when she said this?

"“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."

Is that less or more inciting violence than telling people to "march peacefully and make your voices heard"? Why has she not been removed from Congress/Facebook/Twitter?


I'm just trying to get a grasp on the criteria here for sedition and insurrection.

President Trump supported marching peacefully, and for having their voices heard. Then a couple hundred of total IDIOTS went completely insane over the line. Trump condemned those who committed crimes and said they should be punished, while stating he continues to support the protestors.

So that's impeachable. Sedition and insurrection.

During the summer, well AFTER protests turned violent, Kamala Harris said:

“This is a movement, I’m telling you,” Harris said in the interview. “They’re not going to stop. And everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be — everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, AND THEY SHOULD NOT, and we should not.”

“We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder, she said. “Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.”

So when can we expect Kamala's impeachment? And permanently banning her from Twitter, Facebook, and all the rest?


How quickly everyone wants to turn to the national scene and blame others. Well, THEY did this or THEY did that. I would hardly say individuals screaming ‘You can keep your G… Damn mask’ when asked to put on a mask when entering local stores is hardly suffering in silence. Kansans driving side by sides on public roads with political flags so large that they at times impeded the driver’s vision. Groups unlawfully standing on bridges, making traffic crawl past while they shouted chats. This was rural Kansas this past year. Nope, none of this seems like suffering in silence to me. Let’s clean up our own backyard first. .


I don't condone ANY of it. Just questioning why it was pretty much ok for a long time when coming from one side. Or why the side who screams so loudly about how unjust it is to stereotype large groups of people based on the actions of some turn out to often be the biggest stereotypers of all.

One thing you can count on about politicians follows in this exact same line. It's ok when it happens to others. It was horrible to bring in the National Guard to defend federal buildings this summer. The police needed defunded. Well over $1 billion in property damage/businesses destroyed. (And many of those black-owned businesses). But that was ok because it happened to someone else. Now suddenly there weren't enough police, and the National Guard is suddenly johnny-on-the-spot. How fast their tunes changed when it actually happened to THEM.


I'm curious. All summer long, the protestors burned American flags and attacked Federal buildings in some cases. Took over entire city blocks and defended it with heavily armed people. So anyone supporting that would be guilty of sedition and insurrection, correct? I understand and agree with supporting the protestors, but once they turn violent and begin to commit crimes, if you continue to support that what does that make you? What about if you publicly ask for and support bailing those same people that committed all those crimes out of jail? If calling for people to peacefully march down and have their voices heard is an impeachable offense of sedition and insurrection, then what does that make the above? Just curious.


More whataboutism... sad!


The point is.... we are (supposedly) a nation of laws. And it is fair to point out, when people complain about lawbreakers, past instances where it was NOT enforced. If we are truly a nation of laws, then the law should be applied evenly, to all people, regardless of race, gender, religion, political affiliation or beliefs. But apparently you don't agree. Its ok when the law is applied to those you disagree with, and ok if it is ignored when it applies to those you agree with. That is what is truly sad.


Thousands of BLM protesters have been arrested for breaking laws. 194 arrests were made the day after George Floyds death alone... another 570 in Minneapolis, and over 400 in Ferguson Missouri after the death of Michael Brown. The list is way too long to post here. To say laws weren't enforced during these protests is untruthful.

If the law really was applied evenly, Trump supporters would have been teargassed and flashbanged before they ever reached the capitol grounds, but instead most police stepped aside and let them have at it, even while they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" Imagine a huge crowd of black people smashing through the capitol windows screaming "Hang Mike Pence"... it would have been a much different outcome. The only people asking for laws to be ignored are on the right. That is what is truly sad.


Yes, there were many arrests made during the summer, and rightfully so. But also many allowed. For all the times they did meet the violence with force, there were many times it was not. And even purposefully allowed.

The Baltimore mayor said at a press conference that during her city’s weekend riots, she wanted to “give those who wished to destroy, space to do that.” She also later stated "let them loot, its only property".

Seattle "allowed" several city blocks to be cordoned off and patrolled by heavily armed people for months. No cops allowed, they chased out and assaulted journalists.

Downtown Portland businesses destroyed by looters a month ago say cops did nothing to stop the thieves — and that they still feel abandoned by police and city officials. Other shop owners in the area had similar experiences — they say their businesses were hit even as cops stood nearby.

And most interesting, in the middle of the "Defund the police" movement, polls showed that over 80% of black residents want the same or increased levels of police presence in their neighborhoods.

So yeah.... lots of force used. At times. And not. At times. Can you imagine the DC mayor saying its only property? Or allowing them to cordon off a few blocks and declare it a no-politician zone?


Wasn't Timothy McVey basically a "proud Boy"?


So in the Trump Speech "peacefully march down and have our voices heard" how is that inciting a riot? you can stay silent all you want but Everyone knows that America Burned all summer long why politicians an T.V. personalities cheered it on an excused it as some moral duty. Just because they say "biden calls for unity" doesn't mean he has done a signal thing to unite , he just calls for it, Hey I call for a million dollars to the poor..... Oh nothing happened , well I called for it So give me credit as the man that tried to feed all the poor.


Supporting racial justice is not the same as supporting domestic terrorism.


And once that racial justice protest turns violent? Continue to support it?

Most people at that Capitol rally were horrified that it turned violent. Can you say the same of most people at the summer marches? I guess what you are saying is, violence is justified if its something you agree with. And of course you don't agree with the grievances of those at the Capitol.

Well, lots of those people, like me, probably ACTUALLY WATCHED the testimony of the hundreds of people testifying, under threat of perjury, about what they witnessed during the election. Only to have their cases tossed because they "didn't have standing", (really?) or "were too late", or "didn't have evidence". (By the way, it is illegal to take photographs or video of ballots). Well, in the case of the pay-for-votes that went on in Nevada (which is STRICTLY illegal), there IS video evidence while it happened..... and yet... no prosecution going on there, either. Why is that?

There is plenty of evidence that needs looked at. Laws plainly broken. Was it enough to overturn the election? Who knows. But certainly not, if you just toss it and refuse to look at it. Supreme Court did NOT rule any of it was invalid, they just refused to take the case. (And it was NOT a unanimous refusal). And then have your fascist Big Tech suppress any and all talk about it, along with your fascist media claim daily "no evidence". Is that suppression not fascism?


The BLM website initially also called for the destruction of the nuclear family, until they removed it after some push back. I don't support that, so does that make me a racist?

Hollowed Ground

Almost reads like one of those 'both sides' letters. Sorry Bub, I don't tolerate QAnon followers, spewers of right wing lies and idiocy, nor medical quacks. Nor religious jackasses like Evangelicals who just released a statement supporting Trump all through the insurrection.


I also do not support Antifa, nor many other far-left wing groups that spew lies and idiocy. Nor do I support labeling large groups of people as "jackasses". But then again, if you believe that wages earned = IQ then you aren't very smart. Some of the smartest people I know are poor, either by choice or by circumstances beyond their control. (It's a little-known fact that Einstein's job working as a patent clerk when he first formed his special theory of relativity paid him millions of $$ per year. And yes, that is sarcasm. For those of you not smart enough to realize that). And some of the dumbest are filthy rich. And post here often.


You don't support anti-fascism? So you support... fascism? You must be a Republican.

You're also missing the context on the wages earned = IQ... that poster claimed he made 16 bucks under Obama and then suddenly made 29 and some change under Trump... and attributed his pay raise to Trump. He actually just got a new job, lol. He is also against $15 an hour minimum wage... not the brightest but that's just my opinion. I never claimed to be rich, I just live in an area where $30 an hour is the minimum you can earn to live around here. $30 is a living wage, something every American working 40 hours should be able to have. It's definitely nothing to be on here bragging about.


Part of the definition of fascism is "forcible suppression of opposition".

Need I say more.


One part of fascism is the suppression of opposing views or voices. Since you support the party that supports that, then you must be a...... fascist?


But did that new and higher paying job opportunity arise because of Trump's policies? Do you know for sure if it did or didn't?


Hello Mr. Felts, I’ve been a member of Kansas Farm Bureau for almost 40 years. Let me suggest some “uncomfortable hard truths” Kansas needs to face. A LARGE percentage of farmers and ranchers consider the assault on the Capitol fake news and continue to support President Trump. Please read their or their spouses Facebook pages. The same majority consider COVID a fake disease and have been the most hateful anti-mask people in their local communities.

COVID has also proven the Kansas farmer is but a link in America’s food chain. When COVID shut down the meat packers, feedlots were crying over having to hold cattle. Carcasses of over finished hogs were dumped in old rock quarries right here in Kansas. It’s time to realize it takes millions of people doing their part to feed America and the majority don’t live on farms.

Kansas farmers and ranchers need to take a long hard look at their actions in Kansas lately. It’s time to stop blaming Washington DC for home grown troubles.

Benjamin Franklin quotes are historically inspiring. But perhaps this quote rings more true of a large number of FB members right now? “We have met the enemy and he is us. Walt Kelly” Kind regards.

Hollowed Ground

Farmers and ranchers all over the country brought us Trump and tried like hell to keep him. Just look at the electoral map. Biden won people, Trump won cornfields and cow manure piles. That Republicans regard Covid as a fake disease is well reflected in the national stats.


As Geraldine Ferraro said when she was the VP pick: "You've got LA on one side and NY on the other. And what do you have in between? NOTHING"


Sorry, Eyes, but I am unable to find this quote. Can you provide a source, please?


I paraphrased a little because I couldn't remember the exact quote (it was in 2004, when blue states were talking about seceding from the union because Bush won). Here it is:

"You know what? Just let me make one point. You were talking about the map before. If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those red states, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It’s on both sides, the Northeast corridor.”



By the way, Rationa1, some advice if you can't find things. Switch your search engine from Google. Many things I was unable to find. Then I watched the segment where the group who had been monitoring for the last year found how much Google skews its search results to favor liberals (and the guy that leads this group is a Biden guy, but at least he's honest). And since the election its skewing even more. (So much for 1st amendment). So I switched to other search engines and viola! Things started showing up again.

Well, just when I thought the children were all put to bed and the adults could have a conversation, Gary shows up. Havesomehorsesense, check out some of Gary's posts. He'll make those rural people you were criticizing look like Einstein. I'll drop back in sometime when I need a good chuckle to read some of Gary's latest rabid posts. Until them I'm out. Peace, y'all.


Thanks for the advice, Eyes. You're a font of wisdom.


In addition to the advice, I would say you "paraphrased" Ferraro's quote rather liberally and completely avoided its context.


"is well reflected in the national stats". True. The highest death rates currently are in solidly BLUE states.

The thing is.... which state is "hit the hardest" rises and falls. Different states move to the top and/or bottom of the list and anywhere in between based on where the current "hotspot" may be at that time.

Maybe all those "cornfield and cow pile" people should get some REAL smarts and move all the infected people INTO nursing homes. Heck, they'll probably win an Emmy for doing that! Oh wait, that's already been done....


Currently states with the highest death rates a solidly Democratic.

Which states are hardest hit will change every month, depending on where the current "hotspot" is and many, many other factors.


And there's a lot of people that actually still truly believe in Russian collusion. And that Hunter Biden's antics are all Russian disinformation. And that beating all your blackberries and phones to smithereens with hammers after the FBI has already issued subpoena's for said devices is A-OK. What does that make them? Do they bear any responsibility for stoking anger and distrust?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.