HOME | message board | videos | photos |

Reading all 44 messages in thread
message board home

3/8/2023 12:26:46 PM

Reply or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: President & Congress
Subject: joe and fema Msg# 1183192

From:

Tom Hemmick Forum Leader

Joined 7/21/2005

To:

Mark Freburg (Read)

Joined 4/3/2000

Mark Seems that you've identified a big flaw in the argument that FEMA's grants must be ONLY for natural disasters. The clause you've noted "regardless of cause" certainly appears widely inclusive. And that idea of eligibility for a grant is bolstered by the wording "fire" which was present in the Ohio toxic train wreck

Good analysis, good attention to details, and A+ for reading very carefully. Kudos to you Mark.

For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:
I'm not addressing this to Jim M. because he seems to only want to protect the Democrat machine, but I will ask the rest of you a question. Jim posted the following from the FEMA website, in part:

"The President can declare a major disaster...or, regardless of cause, fire...that the President determines has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities
of state and local governments to respond."

Seems that "regardless of cause" aspect, and "fire" would include the derailment. To defend a failure to act and assist seems incredibly nitpicky and uncaring. Since when is the federal government's directive to not care about people? Is it when they are spending millions giving away free money to people not working during a pandemic? Is it when they are giving away billions to Ukraine, a foreign country involved in a war, a country that has greatly curtailed individual freedoms, and outlawed the Christian religion?

What do the rest of you think? Should we give the federal government a pass on this?

message board home