What's Better In The News?

*What's Better With Benghazi?
What's better with Benghazi is that we shouldn't accept the government's assertion that there were no reinforcements available. This is a lie as an in-country Navy Seal contingent was told to stand down instead of going to Benghazi. I have long said that a jet could have aided the Benghazi defenders. Yesterday, I found in Howard Wasdin's "Seal Team Six" that during the Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia, Seal Wasdin radioed a jet for help as the Ranger convoy he was in had become virtually a sitting duck for Warlord Adid's fighters as the convoy lost its direction repeatedly. The jet pilot said that he was "Winchester" meaning he was out of bombs and missiles. He came back on the radio to say he did have flares and would try to use them. So he came almost on deck to shoot out flares and generally intimidate the fighters. This proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back, and the insurgents broke the attack for a few precious moments. Wasdin was wounded severely, but was still driving the Humvee with one hand and shooting his CAR-15 rifle and then pistols with his other hand. Later in the battle, he called for help from a heliocopter. The pilot said he was Winchester too, but bravely attacked the insurgents with the skids of his heliocopter. Each time an insurgent raised his AK-47 to shoot the heliocopter, Wasdin and his men used that opportunity to cut the insurgent down.
  These were men, not Panetta or Dempsey who did nothing, and certainly not Obama, the Commander-In-Chief, who went to bed while his own beseiged men were fighting for their lives and who refused to send them any help. What kind of person can go to sleep when that is happening? Only a very cold, ruthless person, and we the people should be especially troubled to have such a person as our president. Is there any question whether he's in it for us or himself?
*What's Better With The Immigration Question?
    What's better with the immigration question is that conservatives should reframe the question by asking why we are thinking about passively accepting as citizens possibly as many as 30 million desperately poor people who will be a drain on our welfare resources, our forests and our wildlife. In addition, each person can bring in maybe four others? Instead, conservatives should be actively trying to help these people in their own countries so they can have the economic freedom to open businesses or work for businesses and prosper. Conservatives can do that themselves by forming groups that will make small business loans to Mexicans and other immigrant-prone countries in the Americas. They can vote for conservatives who are, by history, supporters of a free economy. We can get a Washington, D.C, that will support and push for free economies in all countries. This is especially important for the Christians who want to love, love, love, but don't know they should also be doing the most loving thing. The most loving thing to do is not to support flooding with impoverished, unskilled immigrants a country that is already economically broken but supporting immigrants as I have discussed in their own countries.
Peter Nickerson, MS, MSW  352-359-0850