Way down yonder in southeast Kansas, demonstrators protest to vent frustration and find solace
Debbie Dye (right) braves the stiff south wind as she protests in front of Memorial Hall in Independence, Kansas. (Ron Osborn photo)
Montgomery County in southeast Kansas is an isolated place.
Two-lane, often shoulderless, highways lead into the main towns: Independence, Coffeyville, Cherryvale and Caney. With an ever-declining population of 31,448, most rural residents have no access to high-speed internet unless they want to spring for Elon Musk's Starlink. TV antennas don't really work. Dish and streaming services offer network TV channels out of Oklahoma and Missouri, further isolating residents from Kansas news.
When Kansas went 57.2 percent for Donald Trump in the 2024 election, Montgomery County residents gave him 74.7 percent of their vote. In the heart of this red bastion, a group of protesters persevere. Who are they, and what do they think they can accomplish?
Carol Sanders, chairwoman of the Montgomery County Democratic Party, plays a major role in organizing the rallies, but the system has a grassroots feel. People just invite people and post Facebook calls to anyone feeling the need to make a statement or find community.
Now 72, Sanders doesn't have a long history of protests. Her activism started in 2017 when Trump was first elected.
When asked her motivation, Sanders paused before she sighing and launching into a list of issues: abortion, immigration, Ukraine, economics, LGBTQ+ rights, and the separation of church and state.
'Really, I guess what it comes down to is a threat to our democracy,' she said. 'What is going on is abhorrent to me.'
Sanders continued: 'I was a Republican for years. I voted. I paid attention, to some degree, to the news. I never in a million years thought I would be organizing political protests.'
A retired system analyst for Phillips Petroleum, educated at Kansas State University, Sanders stood in front of Memorial Hall on April 10 in Independence with approximately 35 others. She held a sign saying 'Democracy Is At Risk!!' Other signs supported medical research, Ukraine, human rights and denounced DOGE (unfortunately spelled Dodge).
Debbie Dye stood with Sanders on the steps facing the traffic on Highway 75. Some cars honked, making the protesters cheer. Dye's reasons for braving the 28 mph wind gusts were personal.
'I have three daughters, and one benefited from Kansas University's Cancer Research,' she said. 'Hearing of research cuts for KU broke my heart.'
She also found community: 'Being here makes me feel I'm not alone.'
Dye, 74, has six grandchildren from her three daughters and one great-grandchild. Retired after 25 years as a paraprofessional for the Tri-County Education Co-op, she still volunteers as a tutor. Her activism started when her daughters were in local public schools and Dye became involved in reducing class size.
'I went to PTA meetings. I spoke at board meetings, and I saw the system worked,' she said.
Two high-school aged boys walked along the sidewalk through the protesters. One respectfully asked Dye why she was there.
She explained: 'My mother had better health care options than my granddaughter. I grew up here and I had such a great life. I want that a for you.'
They thanked her and moved off toward the local Sonic.
Ivory Porter, 42, has attended three of the Montgomery County protests and one Labette County town hall meeting.
'It's important to stand up and fight back,' she said. 'Plus, it lets like-minded people know they are not alone.'
Porter received her Anthropology degree from Kansas State University when she was only 20. She works nearly full-time substitute teaching for area schools.
'I just protest because I know it's the right thing to do,' she said.
Dale Belcher, a male-minority member of the group, said he had been a Republican most of his voting years. Now 68, the retired music teacher was motivated to march for many of the same reasons that found him serving in the Peace Corps in Jamaica for two years after college. He wants a better world.
'I don't like controversy,' he said. 'I've never protested before in my life and I'm basically a conflict avoider.'
So why is he standing with a red, white and blue banner waiting for an approving car honk?
'I've done everything right,' Belcher said. 'I voted. I worked election jobs, and now I'm really frustrated. For me it's about respect. … Respect for all people, the economy, immigrants, science.'
None of the protesters appeared to fit Trump's label of 'Radical Left Lunatics,' and none appeared to be 'fighting hard to bring Murderers, Drug Lords, Dangerous Prisoners, the Mentally Insane and well known MS-13 Gang Members and Wife Beaters back into our country,' as a recent Trump social media post warned us.
Turnout fluctuates depending on weather and what community activities lure the faithful away, but Sanders plans more events. So far there have been four protests in Independence and three in Coffeyville. On May 3, protesters gathered at the junction of US 169 and US 166 in Coffeyville . Sanders will call for the first gathering in her home town of Caney ('the reddest town in Montgomery County,' she said) on May 31.
None of the Montgomery County protesters seemed likely to key a Tesla or 'conduct an illegal boycott' to make their points. Teslas in Montgomery County are elusive anyway. Even the protesters seemed unsure just how their actions were going to effect change. Still, they hope their stance will residents consider the costs incurred by the current administration.
As Dye summed it up: 'I just had to do something.'
Marsha Hayes is a retired rural mail carrier, retired community college English teacher and award-winning equine journalist. Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counteroffer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. The Chiefs, in a statement to The Associated Press, described the legislative vote as a 'significant step forward' that enables the team to continue exploring options to remain in Missouri. The Royals described the legislation as 'a very important piece of our decision-making process" but made no site-specific commitment. 'Our focus remains the same: to prioritize the best interests of our team, fans, partners and regional community as we pursue the next generational home for the Kansas City Royals,' the team said in a statement to the AP. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely. 'This bill is unconstitutional, it's fiscally reckless, it's morally wrong," said Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin. ___ Associated Press writer Dave Skretta contributed from Kansas City, Missouri.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mayor of Monroe blames social media post for low attendance at Latin Festival
Low attendance at a Latin Fest in Monroe is causing controversy among residents and city leaders. 'I'm having a good time, but I miss my Spanish people,' one attendee said Sunday. 'I don't know what's going on, but this world needs to be in peace so everyone can reunite and be together.' ALSO READ: Group says increase of ICE arrests in Charlotte is leading to more calls for help Both the festivalgoer and Monroe's mayor, Robert Burns, noticed the lack of Hispanic people at the festival, but Burns blamed a social media post made on Facebook for the low turnout. The post said Monroe is not a safe place for immigrants, adding that attending the Latin Fest could place you and others in potential danger. 'I would challenge those individuals who post that type of stuff,' Burns said. 'You genuinely don't care about the Hispanic community, because that affected the businesses of our city. Regardless of what nationality they are, they are businesses and individuals who pour into this city.' The originators of the post, Monroe Immigrants, responded to the mayor in a statement to our partners at Telemundo. 'The City of Monroe needs to make capital from its Hispanic constituents; that's all they care about,' they said. 'The City of Monroe doesn't not care about anything except increasing the profits of capital.' In response, Burns said he was upset by the low turnout at the festival. 'We care about families, we care about the economy, low taxes, education,' he said. 'Not only was I surprised, I was hurt because the Hispanic community has had such an incredible effect on our city.' In May, Monroe City Council approved a statement about public safety and immigration enforcement, stating 'Monroe is not a sanctuary city.' City council passed an additional statement on Tuesday that removed that sentence and says Monroe Police do not enforce federal immigration law. Mayor Burns voted against last night's version. VIDEO: Bakery owner says ICE sparks fear in neighborhood, hurts local businesses
