Tag Archives: Algeria

A “What difference, at this point, does it make?” update

by Emma Karlin, staff writer

For pure arrogance and quintessential liberal hubris it’s hard to beat Hillary Clinton’s “What difference, at this point, does it make?” When asked about how four innocent Americans died during the attack in Benghazi she cleverly gave the media a way to write her guilt away with that line. It was too bad that the timid Republicans were unable to muster the courage to turn the line around on her and ask: “If that is the case why do we do autopsies?” or “Why does the NTSB investigate airplane crashes if, at this point it makes no difference ?” “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Since the Republicans allowed this outrage to pass without challenge, it seems fitting to ask a few other questions that SHOULD matter but of course since asking them would embarrasses Democrats we never will.

Each should be read followed by “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Three more Americans were killed by Islamist murderers in Algeria:

The GDP fell to -.1%:

It will be $20,000 a year for Obamacare’s free medical coverage:

Pump prices are at their highest level on record for this time of year:

Chuck Hagel knows nothing about anything:

Bob Menendez sleeps with underage hookers in the Dominican Republic:

Kathleen Sebelius violated campaign finance laws:

Osama bin laden is dead but Al Qaeda isn’t:

Military women can’t do the same things military men can:

There are no women in Obama’s top ruling circle:

Obama has killed 175 children with drone strikes:

Democrats want to track guns but not voters:

Welfare cards are being used at strip clubs:

Abortions have reduced the number of Black people in America by 1/3:

Anti-gun Democrats send their children to school made safe by armed guards:

More Red States than Blue States run budget surpluses:

Black unemployment is double White unemployment:

Seven of ten Americans say we are on the wrong track:

What difference, at this point, do the answers to these questions make? Well actually a lot, but since these questions will never be asked, no difference at all.


A Benghazi-Algeria connection to free the Blind Sheik?

by Ron Reale,  staff writer

What if there was a plan afoot to return the Blind Sheik to his terrorist Islamist brethren?  A plan so outrageous might exist that no one would believe it, unless it was said to come from this administration. What if the Benghazi offices had no security because it was part of a plan to trade the “captured” American attache Chris Stevens for the convicted, unrepentant terrorist, (no, not Bill Ayers, the OTHER American hating terrorist).

What if that was why the military was told to stand down during the initial attacks? Suppose the only reason everyone was killed is because of the unexpected heroic efforts of two real American heroes, whose resistance was thought by the attackers to be a breach of the deal which was supposed to allow for the easy capture of the American diplomatic officials! The idea was to trade the terrorist sheik for the American Diplomats safe return to their families.

Now suppose Algeria is the second stage of this attempt by the terrorists to recover their brother terrorist. Except this time, the Islamists are acting unilaterally. After Benghazi, they feel they cannot trust any deal their Muslim connections in the American administration offer. The Blind Sheik is going home. Sooner or later. Obama and his Islamist handlers did not have the stones to make the case for his release directly to the American people. Instead, we will watch him struggle with this “terrible decision” to negotiate with the Islamists. In the end, Obama will release the Blind Sheik.

There are only two things wrong with this theory:

 1) While there is no evidence to prove or disprove it, any logical theory must be considered, and this is what I believe:

 2) No one would be surprised if it came from this administration.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe there will be any concessions towards the Americans in this crisis. I believe Obama will “lead from behind” while Americans die under the protection of his Islamist handlers.

 I pray I am wrong.


Obama Regime can’t decide if al Qaeda is involved in terrorism

by Jim Emerson,  staff writer

Al-Qaida in Algeria

The Republic of Mali is a landlocked nation in Northwestern Saharan Africa. Mali is divided into eight regions and has a population of 15 million. The main sources of income for the nation are fishing and agriculture though it is one of the largest producers of gold on the African continent. Since 1992 the country was stable until a coup d’état in March 2012 removed the government and suspended the constitution, claiming that the nation’s President did little to quell a rebellion by a separatist group which was sidelined by al Qaeda trained Islamic terrorist Ansar Dine and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). The goal of these organizations was to turn Mali and Algeria into Sharia compliant Islamic republics. Being so close to Libya and Egypt it would be safe to assume that they were getting assistance from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The French

Seeing the possibility of Mali falling into the hands of al Qaeda the French launched Operation Serval to assist Mali’s interim government and restore democracy in the embattled nation.  Unlike the Obama Administration, France sees an al Qaeda controlled North Africa as a perfect spot from which to launch multiple 9-11 attacks with impunity against western nations. (2)(3) France has deployed troops in the region and is providing air support.  Algeria–which has an aggressive anti-terrorism policy–allowed the French to use their airspace against the Islamists in Mali. France has had some success against the Islamists in the Southern region of Mali but the area of the groups control extends to the North and into Southern Algeria. French involvement has been effective in halting a terrorist takeover of Mali.  The Islamists had to retaliate.


Al-Mulathameen Brigade (Masked Ones), a sub element of AQIM, are known for smuggling drugs, weapons, people and kidnapping—in short, for being good Muslims. (4) Their plan was to attack a soft target and grab as many western hostages as they could at the Amanas natural gas installation. There were plenty of westerners there to be had! It’s likely that the group wanted to initiate a hostage standoff to persuade France to leave Mali and force Algeria to close its airspace to western nations. But before they could get their demands out to the western press, Algeria exercised its own anti-terrorism policy and attacked the facility killing several terrorists and hostages. (At of the time of this writing it is unknown how many and who were killed). There were no negotiations.

The terrorists were seeking publicity, hoping to force France to leave Mali and deter any future opposition to their Jihad. They believed their message would inspire home grown Islamists in western nations who would commit terrorist attacks against their own government in retaliation. The terrorists failed and the world is standing by Mali and Algeria. And the Obama Administration? It is trying to decide if this was a terrorist action!



  1. 1.       http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245310036330882.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
  2. 2.       http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/17/us-france-reportedly-in-talks-with-algeria-over-hostage-standoff/
  3. 3.       http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/17/france-targets-islamist-held-town-in-mali/
  4. 4.       http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/world/meast/algeria-who-is-belmoktar/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
  5. 5.       http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/world/meast/algeria-who-is-belmoktar/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
  6. 6.