The Biden-Harris administration has come under fire for redirecting over a billion dollars meant for disaster relief towards services for illegal immigrants. At a time when American communities are struggling to recover from devastating storms like Hurricane Helene, FEMA’s use of resources is being scrutinized, raising questions about where the government’s priorities truly lie.

FEMA Funds Redirected for Immigration Services

According to official reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), nearly $364 million from the 2023 fiscal year and $650 million for the 2024 fiscal year were diverted to the "Shelter and Services Program" designed to provide humanitarian services to noncitizen migrants. These funds, originally intended for disaster relief, were reallocated to help migrants upon their release from short-term holding facilities. The program, run in partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), aims to ensure the "safe, orderly, and humane" release of these individuals.

This shift in funding came to light after an anonymous post on X (formerly Twitter) highlighted the Biden-Harris administration’s decisions. Ironically, this conversation began when MSNBC pundit Michael Steele sought to criticize former President Donald Trump for his management of FEMA funds. Steele referenced an NBC report that highlighted Trump’s decision to transfer $271 million from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain migrants. The comparison quickly backfired, revealing that the current administration has moved significantly more money away from FEMA’s disaster relief efforts.

Shifting Priorities in FEMA

What has made this situation even more controversial is FEMA’s own list of priorities under the Biden-Harris administration. According to its official website, FEMA’s top two goals are:

1. Instilling equity in emergency management
2. Leading climate resilience efforts

Disaster preparedness, which has historically been FEMA’s primary responsibility, ranks third. This reordering of priorities is raising alarms, especially as regions across the southeastern United States have been hit hard by natural disasters. Critics argue that prioritizing "equity" and "climate resilience" has distracted FEMA from its core mission of emergency response and preparedness.

The Impact on Storm-Ravaged Areas

Hurricane Helene, which tore through parts of western North Carolina and Georgia, has become a focal point in the debate over FEMA’s funding decisions. These areas were devastated by overwhelming rainfall and flash floods, leaving hundreds missing and entire towns destroyed. As the Biden administration focuses on equity and climate initiatives, critics argue that its disaster response has been weak and poorly coordinated.

Some are even calling Helene the administration’s "Katrina moment," referring to President George W. Bush’s widely criticized response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Federalist Senior Editor John Davidson drew a comparison between the political fallout of Katrina and the potential impact on the Biden-Harris administration, pointing out that Democrats won the 2006 midterms largely by capitalizing on Bush’s response to that crisis.

The photo-op moments by Vice President Kamala Harris during the disaster recovery efforts have only added fuel to the fire. In one instance, Harris was pictured appearing to work on disaster relief, though critics pointed out that her earbuds were not plugged in and her notes were blank. The "staged photo" quickly became symbolic of what many see as the administration's failure to prioritize American citizens during a time of crisis.

Adding to the urgency, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas recently acknowledged the strain on FEMA resources. "We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have. We are expecting another hurricane hitting. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season," Mayorkas said, underscoring the precarious financial situation as another major storm looms on the horizon.

Biden: "We've Given Everything That We Have"

Further adding to the outrage, President Biden declined to commit additional federal resources to Americans affected by Hurricane Helene. When questioned by reporters about the possibility of more aid, Biden stated, “We’ve given everything that we have,” as he boarded a plane back to Washington.

When a reporter pressed, “Are there any more resources the federal government could be giving them?” Biden responded bluntly: “No.”

A Call for Change

Americans are now calling for greater accountability. The question on many people’s minds is clear: why are taxpayer dollars, meant to help disaster-stricken citizens, being redirected to serve those entering the country illegally? Communities like those in Appalachia, hit hard by Hurricane Helene, deserve to be at the forefront of FEMA’s efforts. Instead, they find themselves waiting, as resources are stretched thin.

The pressure is mounting on the administration to correct course. After all, with the 2024 elections looming, the actions taken now could have significant political consequences. It’s not too late for the government to prioritize Americans first and ensure that FEMA’s resources are being used to protect and rebuild communities in need.

By refocusing FEMA on disaster preparedness and restoring funds where they belong, there is still hope that Americans will receive the help they desperately need.

As we head into one of the most critical elections in modern U.S. history, the vice-presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz has the potential to be the most influential VP debate ever. With Vice President Kamala Harris dodging detailed policy discussions and offering little more than vague soundbites throughout the campaign, this debate will be the first opportunity for voters to hear substantial policy discourse—something that has been sorely missing from the Harris/Walz ticket. Here’s why this debate could eclipse previous VP matchups and alter the trajectory of the race.

1. Kamala Harris: The Queen of Word Salad

Vice President Kamala Harris has become synonymous with vague, meandering answers that often leave the public and media searching for any coherent policy stance. Whether in interviews or public appearances, Harris tends to lean on her background, reciting personal anecdotes about growing up in a middle-class neighborhood or her work as a prosecutor. However, she has consistently avoided specifics on pressing issues, from immigration to the economy. Critics, like Peggy Noonan from The Wall Street Journal, have pointed out that Harris’s inability to deliver clear, direct answers reflects poorly on her ability to lead.

Voters are hungry for real answers. Harris has yet to hold a formal press conference during this campaign, avoiding direct engagement on policy. Meanwhile, her running mate, Tim Walz, has mirrored this strategy, offering little more than progressive platitudes without diving into the details of his platform. The American people have grown tired of the “word salad” responses from the Harris/Walz camp, and this debate will finally offer the stark contrast voters are seeking.

2. J.D. Vance: A Voice for the Working Class with Substance

While the Harris/Walz campaign has relied on vague talking points, J.D. Vance offers something different—clarity and substance. Vance has been dismissed by Democrats as “weird,” but his appeal to the working-class voter is undeniable. Raised in the heart of Ohio, Vance understands the economic struggles of middle America, and he speaks to these issues with authenticity. Unlike the Democratic ticket, which avoids direct policy discussions, Vance is a policy wonk with a deep understanding of complex issues that matter to voters, from economic revitalization to trade and manufacturing.

This debate is Vance’s opportunity to showcase his command of policy and, in doing so, expose Tim Walz as a politician disconnected from the Rust Belt’s reality. Walz, who allowed his state to spiral into chaos during the riots of 2020, will have to answer for his failures in leadership—a stark contrast to Vance’s promise to restore order and economic stability in struggling regions. Vance’s ability to communicate real policy while connecting with working-class voters is what sets him apart in this debate and could be the deciding factor for millions of Americans.

3. Tim Walz: Rust Belt Fraud or Progressive Puppet?

Tim Walz will face significant challenges in this debate, as his record as governor of Minnesota will come under intense scrutiny. During the summer of 2020, Minneapolis became a focal point of the nationwide protests and riots following the death of George Floyd. Walz was heavily criticized for his mishandling of the situation, as the state suffered massive property damage, and many Minnesotans felt abandoned by his lack of decisive action. This debate gives Vance the chance to highlight Walz’s failures, showing that his leadership during the crisis was weak and ineffective.

In addition, Walz’s support for far-left policies—like tampons in boys’ bathrooms and other progressive cultural issues—will alienate moderate voters, especially those in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. These policies may align with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, but they do little to address the concerns of everyday Americans in the Rust Belt who care more about jobs, safety, and economic opportunity. Vance will likely draw a sharp contrast between Walz’s out-of-touch progressive positions and his own focus on economic growth and rebuilding American industry.

4. J.D. Vance’s Strength: Mastery of Policy vs. Walz’s Vagueness

One of the defining features of this debate will be the stark difference in how the candidates handle policy discussions. J.D. Vance is a master of policy minutiae. While President Trump—known for his bold, sweeping rhetoric—does not often dive into the weeds of policy, Vance excels in this area. Trump, having already served four years in office, doesn’t need to get into the fine details because his record speaks for itself—he was vetted by his performance as president, during which the country experienced historic economic growth, energy independence, and stronger border security.

Vance fills the gap by offering voters the detailed policy arguments that Trump doesn’t always emphasize. Vance’s expertise on issues like manufacturing, trade, and working-class economics will stand in stark contrast to the Harris/Walz ticket, which has so far been all slogans and no substance. This debate will force Walz to engage on real issues—something the Democratic campaign has been avoiding for months. As voters become increasingly frustrated with the lack of specific answers from Harris and Walz, Vance’s command of policy will be a breath of fresh air.

Additionally, Vance can effectively counter the false narrative that MAGA’s future agenda is driven by Project 2025, a think tank plan attributed to the Heritage Foundation. In reality, Vance will likely emphasize the real vision of MAGA: Agenda 47, a platform focused on economic revitalization, energy independence, and restoring American greatness. By clearly articulating the policies behind Agenda 47, Vance can dispel misconceptions and offer a compelling alternative to Walz’s vague progressive talking points.

5. The Debate America Has Been Waiting For

The American people are desperate for substance. In an election where much of the public discourse has been dominated by rhetorical dodges and talking-point politics, this debate offers something different. J.D. Vance will bring clarity, detail, and a focus on real issues that have been missing from the campaign thus far. For the first time, voters will hear from a candidate who can not only connect with the working-class electorate but also explain, in detail, how his policies will improve their lives.

This is a critical moment for the Republican ticket, as Vance’s clear command of policy will stand in stark contrast to the vague and often contradictory positions of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Where the Democrats have been offering word salads and avoiding press conferences, Vance will deliver concrete solutions to the problems facing America. This debate could be the moment where the Republican ticket begins to decisively pull ahead, showing the American people that there is a real alternative to the vague promises and empty rhetoric that have characterized the Harris/Walz campaign.

This VP debate has the potential to be the most influential in U.S. history. J.D. Vance will have the opportunity to showcase his policy expertise and connect with the working-class voters who feel neglected by the progressive agenda. Meanwhile, Tim Walz will be forced to defend his record and provide real answers—something his campaign has avoided up to this point. This debate will finally give voters what they’ve been waiting for: a substantive conversation about the future of America.

As Asheville, North Carolina, reels from the latest devastating floods, which have claimed lives and caused extensive property damage, questions about the city's flood management practices have resurfaced. While many have pointed to climate change as the cause of Asheville's increasingly frequent flooding, the underlying issue may be far more local. Liberal city policies that have prioritized rapid development over necessary infrastructure improvements have left Asheville vulnerable. The city's rapid urbanization, without sufficient attention to flood management systems, has compounded the risk, turning heavy rain events into deadly disasters.

The Development Problem

As previously mentioned, liberal urban planning in Asheville has permitted high-density development, leading to widespread construction of roads, rooftops, and parking lots—impervious surfaces that prevent rainwater from being absorbed naturally into the ground. Consequently, when heavy rainfall occurs, the excess water has nowhere to go but into Asheville’s streets and rivers, resulting in flash flooding.

Areas like Biltmore Village and the River Arts District have been hit particularly hard, not just because of extreme weather but because of the failure to update stormwater systems to accommodate increased runoff. Instead of slowing development to assess infrastructure needs, city planners have continued to prioritize growth without properly addressing the resulting flood risks.

Poor Infrastructure and Outdated Systems

While climate change is often cited as the culprit, the reality is that Asheville’s infrastructure has not kept up with the demands of rapid urbanization. Roads and rooftops channel large amounts of rainwater into an outdated stormwater management system, which struggles to handle the increased volume. This is why flooding has become more frequent and severe, regardless of the global climate situation.

As more areas are developed, the problem continues to grow. Without significant upgrades to stormwater infrastructure, flash flooding will remain a persistent issue. It's clear that the policies driving this unchecked urban expansion, not climate change, are to blame for the increasingly common floods.

Overstating Climate Change’s Role

Many have overstated the role of climate change in Asheville’s flooding issues. While climate factors like increased moisture and heavier rains can contribute, the core problem lies in city planning choices that exacerbate these conditions. By paving over natural landscapes with impervious surfaces, Asheville’s urban policies have made it much harder for rain to be absorbed, dramatically increasing the risk of urban flooding.

This is not a new issue. Asheville has seen repeated flooding events in its history, most notably in 2004 and again in more recent years. Each time, the lack of modern infrastructure has been highlighted as a major contributor. Yet, the response has remained the same—further development without sufficient preparation for handling rainwater.

Conclusion

Asheville’s flooding issues can be traced back to liberal city policies that prioritize growth and development over sustainable urban planning and flood prevention. While climate change may play a small role, it is not the main cause. Instead, the city must focus on updating its infrastructure and creating better flood management systems to reduce the risk of flash floods in the future.

For more information on Asheville's development and its impact on flooding, check out these sources:

• Asheville Watchdog: https://avlwatchdog.org/ashevilles-flood-risk-will-only-grow-as-rain-events-and-climate-change-intensify
• Asheville.com: https://www.asheville.com/news/2024/09/asheville-watchdog-ashevilles-flood-risk-will-only-grow-as-rain-events-and-climate-change-intensify/
• The Charlotte Observer: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/weather-news/article293109734.html