The Devastation of Helene in North Carolina

Our minister has a home near Asheville so she went up there last week to help out and check on the home. She left with her SUV loaded to the gills with supplies as well as $8k in cash donated by members of our church for the relief effort. She said that the number of people helping and assisting each other was simply amazing.
 
A friend is answering calls from Crisis Cleanup. She spoke to a lady who bought a uhaul load of tarps in NY. She was headed there to donate them. People do care.
 
A friend has a house off US-221 below Linville Falls. He got trapped up there for a few days. Everyone worked 12-hour days trying to clean up the mess.

He is especially grateful for the National Forest Service cutting a path through a thousand downed trees on the roads in his neighborhood.

There is a huge good news story. He was told it would take 4 months to get electric power restored. Outage maps had entire counties out (Henderson, Polk and Ashe). His power is back. In 2 weeks. Most of western NC has been restored. A spectacular accomplishment by the power companies.
 
...Maybe if they weren't spending taxpayer monies on illegals, they would have more to help American victims of disasters.

Government agencies, like businesses, have different budgets for different purposes...what they spend doesn't come out of one big pot of money. And money has to be spent legally, in accordance with the law. (Can you just imagine the mischief that would result if agency heads could take funds at will from one project and spend them on another?)

By definition, the migrants who are permitted to be here, and who are receiving some form of government assistance, are not "illegals". That term applies to people who sneak across the border and try to evade detection, not people who arrive at the border and ask for asylum.

So, what's "disinformation" and what isn't?

Your first quote above is a good example of disinformation.
 
Government agencies, like businesses, have different budgets for different purposes...what they spend doesn't come out of one big pot of money. And money has to be spent legally, in accordance with the law. (Can you just imagine the mischief that would result if agency heads could take funds at will from one project and spend them on another?)

By definition, the migrants who are permitted to be here, and who are receiving some form of government assistance, are not "illegals". That term applies to people who sneak across the border and try to evade detection, not people who arrive at the border and ask for asylum.



Your first quote above is a good example of disinformation.
Rodan may have erred in painting with the broad brush term "illegals" but he's not wrong in the $640M spent on community support on migrants awaiting legal disposition. Hard to say what are the true numbers of migrants apprehended while entering vs. those seeking asylum. See the first article in his post.
 
Rodan may have erred in painting with the broad brush term "illegals" but he's not wrong in the $640M spent on community support on migrants awaiting legal disposition. Hard to say what are the true numbers of migrants apprehended while entering vs. those seeking asylum. See the first article in his post.

You make a good point...thanks.

The problem with this whole debate is that our reactions tend to be visceral rather than logical, with the problem exacerbated by some public figures whipping up xenophobia every chance they get. Yes, our border should be absolutely secure against illegal entry, and no one should be here who is not legally entitled to be here. But...

People who present themselves at our border and ask for asylum are following our law, and under the law, we allow them to enter our country pending resolution of their claims. When we do that, we have to shelter and support them, educate their children, provide medical care, etc., while we adjudicate their cases. The alternative is...what? Let them live on the streets or starve? Deny them basic needs? Is that really what we want America to be? Is that the image of the USA we want to present to the world?

When my great-grandparents came here from Europe, they were the foreigners who didn't speak English, didn't look like "real Americans", ate strange food and dressed funny. They settled in an "ethnic" neighborhood in Baltimore with other immigrants from their homeland. Within one generation, our family completely assimilated: My father was a proud American who didn't speak a word of his grandfather's native language. That's the story of America.

People don't come to the USA -- especially by walking hundreds of miles -- because things are great in their home countries, and they just want a change of scenery. They come here to make better lives for themselves, and the vast majority of them want nothing more than to assimilate, to be successful, and to become a part of our great American mosaic. In my opinion, the money we spend to help them as they begin their new lives here is an investment in the future.
 
Really? Wow...I thought I've been a lot wittier in some other posts.

But seriously...clever memes and cynical comments are no substitute for facts and evidence. Do you have any evidence that members of the "legacy media" are not professional journalists, or that they are not committed to gathering information and reporting facts?

I realize that some crackpots in this country chant "fake news" any time they read something they don't like in the newspaper, and I'm also aware of the bias on most editorial pages. But for straight-up factual reporting, the "legacy media" -- especially newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times, and wire services like the Associated Press -- are still a better source of accurate information than an online blogger with an ideological axe to grind.

surely you must be referring to cbs editing harris's 60 minutes interview?

The washington pist and nyt's "straight-up factual reporting" is the saddest line i have heard in some time. Course comparing them to some anonymous blogger is as bad as their "anonymous sources" It seems most their political reporters are not real reporters, but lefty advocates. Course much of the right's reporters are similar.

Nothing much has changed, if you want to have a serious discussion, you need a variety of news sources. As bad as the lying, is what they decide to cover.

WATCH: FCC commissioner explains if CBS could be in hot water over controversial '''60 Minutes''' edit | Fox News
 
Last edited:
The problem with this whole debate is that our reactions tend to be visceral rather than logical, with the problem exacerbated by some public figures whipping up xenophobia every chance they get. Yes, our border should be absolutely secure against illegal entry, and no one should be here who is not legally entitled to be here. But...

People who present themselves at our border and ask for asylum are following our law, and under the law, we allow them to enter our country pending resolution of their claims. When we do that, we have to shelter and support them, educate their children, provide medical care, etc., while we adjudicate their cases. The alternative is...what? Let them live on the streets or starve? Deny them basic needs? Is that really what we want America to be? Is that the image of the USA we want to present to the world?

When my great-grandparents came here from Europe, they were the foreigners who didn't speak English, didn't look like "real Americans", ate strange food and dressed funny. They settled in an "ethnic" neighborhood in Baltimore with other immigrants from their homeland. Within one generation, our family completely assimilated: My father was a proud American who didn't speak a word of his grandfather's native language. That's the story of America.

People don't come to the USA -- especially by walking hundreds of miles -- because things are great in their home countries, and they just want a change of scenery. They come here to make better lives for themselves, and the vast majority of them want nothing more than to assimilate, to be successful, and to become a part of our great American mosaic. In my opinion, the money we spend to help them as they begin their new lives here is an investment in the future.

Thank you for another MSM talking point dump.

Legitimate 'asylum seekers' are probably less than 1% of the migrants who have been admitted over the last four years. There is (was) a legal process for vetting and admitting asylum seekers and it has been completely set aside so that millions of economic migrants can be called 'asylum seekers' and 'permitted' to enter. And then they are immediately handed thousands of dollars in benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Opposing this economic and cultural suicide is not xenophobia, it's self preservation. NY City alone has spent a BILLION dollars over the last two years just on hotel rooms for migrants. We are way too far in debt to be spending this kind of money on migrants who should never have been admitted in the first place. And all of it is at the expense of American Citizens, whose grandchildren will be paying the bill. there are plenty of Americans in need, and we need to look to our own problems before we start taking on the rest of the world's.
 
Like most government agencies, FEMA's funding is not a zero-sum amount. Spending for one program doesn't take away from the budget for another program. Of course, if you have information the rest of us don't -- perhaps you work for FEMA or DHS? -- please share it...or just tell us what led you to write the above post?

So is this the same as more funding going to one program in initial budget, while less (including reducing the percentage rate of increase) goes to another? Is this different from funding for immediate needs in one program, being siphoned off approved budget for another?

Am fairly familiar with our States budget process and there is a lump sum of money to be spent. If one program increases, then another must be decreased. This is what leads to all the programs fighting over State taxpayers money.

Course am not writing for the (C)arefully (N)uanced (N)onsense channel.
 
In regards to FEMA being accused of "taking" property. This specific accusation has been leveled against them and State Floodplain regulators for decades. Usually it is in regards to Federally funded buyouts of floodway property's where substantial damage has occurred, and the local floodplain regulations severely regulate the reconstruction/repair of substantially damaged property's in floodways.

Combine the application of these regs onto rural property owners by mostly city type FEMA adjusters, eoither directly or through mandated local/state regs, and tensions can build rapidly. Especially given the ingrained prejudice's between the two groups.

And yes, i have personally had FEMA remove one of their "adjuster"s from my region during a Federally declared disaster. Like any organization, they ain't all be saints.
 
There was FEMA before 2020 and FEMA after 2020. They DO NOT have the same policies. Listen to Sheriff Chuck Wright of Spartanburg, S.C. You will get tears in your eyes.

And i'd be remiss not to include i have been retired about 7 yrs.
 
There was FEMA before 2020 and FEMA after 2020. They DO NOT have the same policies. Listen to Sheriff Chuck Wright of Spartanburg, S.C. You will get tears in your eyes.

Listen to which of his messages? I see references to two different 'viral' videos. The messages are rather different.

I would listen to whatever he had to say except that every site I looked at wanted to load about a gigabyte of scripts from who knows where to do who knows what. Not on my computers, you don't.
 
and the vast majority of them want nothing more than to assimilate,

My experience is different. I have read that one of my grandfathers came over from Germany in the 1740s and after he got here he wouldn't speak German. When I hear people from other countries speaking in their native language I'm led to believe they are not wanting to assimilate. There are many when I try to talk with them we can't understand each other but if they always tried to speak our language instead instead of their native language they would soon learn our language. Larry
 
My experience is different. I have read that one of my grandfathers came over from Germany in the 1740s and after he got here he wouldn't speak German. When I hear people from other countries speaking in their native language I'm led to believe they are not wanting to assimilate. There are many when I try to talk with them we can't understand each other but if they always tried to speak our language instead instead of their native language they would soon learn our language. Larry

If you visited Germany with a group of your friends and stopped at a bier garden for a few brews, would you converse with them in English or German? Most who claim they "no habla" do indeed.
 
So Am fairly familiar with our States budget process and there is a lump sum of money to be spent. If one program increases, then another must be decreased. This is what leads to all the programs fighting over State taxpayers money.
Course am not writing for the (C)arefully (N)uanced (N)onsense channel.

State and the Federal budgets are NOT the same. If FEMA wants to move money in X amount (it changes by year of appropriation) from one major agency fund to another, they would have to go back to Congress to get that authorized, as Congress intended and authorized how much money goes into the specific funds that they created. Best of luck with that process in less than a year or two.

I've often wondered what FEMA did with all of those FEMA Camps and FEMA Coffins from several years ago.
 
Last edited:
Didn't FEMA have thousands of small house trailers? Sell them off or sitting somewhere? I will wait to I actually talk to some relatives N. of Asheville to hear the Real Truth.

It won't be the real truth, though. That's what you have David Muir for. To steer you away from that misinformation. Thank God.
 
Back
Top