The United States is again opening its wallet to help “ease the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories”. Sounds like a wonderful and compassionate thing to do. Unfortunately, history has shown that little is to be gained by such gestures. Aid of this type accomplishes very little in terms of improving humanitarian conditions (because they do nothing to address the causes of whatever “crisis” is being remedied), and actually helps perpetuate the terrorist sponsoring governments whose policy failures have directly lead to the “humanitarian crisis” in the first place.

Funding the Palestinians

Lavishing funds on Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to achieve peace has been a mainstay of Western, including Israeli, policy since Hamas seized Gaza in June. But this open spigot has counterproductive results and urgently must be stopped.

Some background: Paul Morro of the Congressional Research Service reports that, in 2006, the European Union and its member states gave US$815 million to the Palestinian Authority, while the United States sent it $468 million. When other donors are included, the total receipts come to about $1.5 billion.

The windfall keeps growing. President George W. Bush requested a $410 million supplement in October, beyond a $77 million donation earlier in the year. The State Department justifies this lordly sum on the grounds that it “supports a critical and immediate need to support a new Palestinian Authority (PA) government that both the U.S. and Israel view as a true ally for peace.” At a recent hearing, Gary Ackerman, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, endorsed the supplemental donation.

…But innovative research by Steven Stotsky, a research analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) finds that an influx of money to the Palestinians has had the opposite effect historically. Relying on World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other official statistics, Stotsky compares two figures since 1999: budgetary support aid provided annually to the Palestinian Authority and the number of Palestinian homicides annually (including both criminal and terrorist activities, and both Israeli and Palestinian victims). Graphed together, the two figures show an uncanny echo:

This is precisely why I called for tough love in the wake of Hamas’ election in 2006.

The United States has already donated almost $2 billion dollars to the Palestinian people, mostly through either the United Nations or various other international organizations. House Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the Committee on International Relations, believes that “without question, continued assistance from the U.S. and other donors is essential to meeting basic human needs and avoiding a worsening of conditions in general.” That is without question, but what we should be questioning is whether or not it’s a good idea for us to be meeting their needs.

…Mr. Hyde hopes “that the leaders of Hamas will combine their new mandate with wisdom and compassion for their own people and avoid the exhilarating temptations of apocalyptic visions.” Why should they? Why waste energy trying to help Palestinians when there are countless “caring” international bodies ready to do it for them? We didn’t prop up Russia’s failed society in the midst of the Cold War, nor should we have as it would have allowed their dangerous government to hold on to power that much longer. Most Russian citizens weren’t involved in that government, they weren’t threatening our country. How come we weren’t as compassionate then and why didn’t we give them financial support? We didn’t because we recognized that to do so would have negative long term consequences. For just the same reason that a welfare state has long term negative economic effects. Why, then, are we propping up terrorist societies in the midst of our war on terror?

Ensuring the welfare of people who elect terrorists as their government, by providing a safety net through generous international aid, only frees those terrorists from what little obligation they may have felt toward domestic issues. Without the threat of public backlash, they can devote all their time and resources to making war against Israel and the U.S.

Iran Could Have Enough Uranium for a Bomb by Year’s End

New simulations carried out by European Union experts come to an alarming conclusion: Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb by the end of this year.

Could Iran be building an atomic bomb? When the US released a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) late last year, it seemed as though the danger of a mullah-bomb had passed. The report claimed to have information indicating that Tehran mothballed its nuclear weapons program as early as autumn 2003. The paper also said that it was “very unlikely” that Iran would have enough highly enriched uranium — the primary ingredient in atomic bombs — by 2009 to produce such a weapon. Rather, the NIE indicated “Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough (highly enriched uranium) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 timeframe.”

It didn’t take long for experts to question the report’s conclusion that Tehran was no longer interested in building the bomb. And now, a new computer simulation undertaken by European Union experts indicates that the NIE’s time estimates might be dangerously inaccurate as well — and that Iran might have enough fuel for a bomb much earlier than was previously thought.

As part of a project to improve control of nuclear materials, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra, Italy set up a detailed simulation of the centrifuges currently used by Iran in the Natanz nuclear facility to enrich uranium. The results look nothing like those reached by the US intelligence community.

For one scenario, the JRC scientists assumed the centrifuges in Natanz were operating at 100 percent efficiency. Were that the case, Iran could already have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for an atomic device by the end of this year. Another scenario assumed a much lower efficiency — just 25 percent. But even then, Iran would have produced enough uranium by the end of 2010.

If this doesn’t highlight the fact that some in our intelligence service thinks it’s their job to make, rather than inform, policy, I don’t know what will. It is clear now that the recent NIE was not an honest attempt at intelligence assessment, but was cooked up by anti-Administration forces and conveniently leaked to the press in attempt to hijack American foreign policy from where it has been Constitutionally placed, in the hands of a democratically elected leader.

Fidel Castro has finally let go of his choke hold on Cuba. In his wake is a legacy of murder, oppression, and economic ruin. During his tenure he toyed with one economic gimmick after another, each matching the failures of the last. Over one hundred thousand Cubans found themselves imprisoned in his gulags for not toeing the revolutionary line; tens of thousands executed; and countless more forced into exile to escape communism’s hell on earth.

Now that the aging idol of the left is on the way out, things might get better, yes? Maybe not. With his brother Raul set to pick up where he left off, no release of the shackles of communism are in immediate sight. Thankfully Raul is also not long for this earth, and so hope remains that the dark cloud of communism may soon be lifted from this tiny island nation.

One can’t help but wonder who the MSM will fawn over now?

A fictitious phenomenon has claimed the life of a fictitious creature.

Veteran Loch Ness Monster Hunter Gives Up

LEGENDARY Nessie hunter Robert Rines is giving up his search for the monster after 37 years.

The 85-year-old American will make one last trip in a bid to find the elusive beast.

…Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.

Hat tip: The Corner

Running a story about the Mohammad cartoons, a Norwegian newspaper was so kind as to protect our delicate sensibilities from the indecent drawings with Cops-style pixelation.

Cover your eyes…there’s dhimmitude on display.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

A New Hampshire landlord who rented property to the Hillary campaign for 5 days says that he hasn’t been paid, and no one will return his calls.

Rochester physician Terry Bennett said he rented a city building to people who worked for Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign ? and skipped town without paying the bill.

Making matters worse, Bennett said, the 3,000-square-foot building at 236 Union St. was left trashed. Campaign signs were left lying all over the place, he said.

…Whitney, with the firm of Keller Williams Coastal Realty, confirmed the building was not left in good condition.

“We had to pick up after them,” he said.

…When the group did not give him a check for the amount up front, as per the agreement, Whitney said, he gave them the benefit of the doubt.

“But they packed up and left,” he said.

“They left enough trash for a small army,” said Bennett. “We filled two of those big black trash bags with what they left. There might still be a 4×8 Hillary sign there we pulled off the fence.”

Classy.

This is nothing new for the Clinton’s. Clinton staffers trashed the White House, and did $20,000 worth of damage, on their way out in 2001.^[1] The pattern is clear: whatever the Clinton’s occupy, they destroy. Let’s not give them another chance to trash America.

^[1] 2002. Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition. United States General Accounting Office, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf.

Following his disappointing showing on Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney threw in the towel and gave an impassioned speech at CPAC.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century?still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable…

And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.

…The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960?s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven?t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug?we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography?even celebration of it?and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today?s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school?and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

…Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America?s vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

…Most politicians don?t seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens–that it?s just there. But every dollar represents a good or service produced in the private sector. Depress the private sector and you depress the well-being of Americans.

That?s exactly what happens with high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government. Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector. Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?

It?s high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government!

And finally, let?s consider the greatest challenge facing America?and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy?to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

…Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the constitution. Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.

Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.? You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child?s play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country…

He seems to be setting himself up as the default conservative standard bearer for the future. How well that will work after a long campaign of never really being embraced by conservatives remains to be seen. It was a good speech nonetheless.

*Delegate numbers incomplete

12:18 PM EST Update: FOX has called California for Romney. This and the lose in Missouri are disappointments for Romney, though he’ll get a lot of delegates from California. The exact numbers won’t be known until tomorrow.

12:00 PM EST Update:Will this clown never shut up?

11:52 PM EST Update: Colorado now goes to Romney.

Also, does Obama ever say anything of substance? No wonder his supporters always come off so vapid when interviewed.

11:15 PM EST Update: Romney picks up Montana caucus. He’ll probably add Colorado to that list shortly.

10:41 PM EST Update: Huckabee picks up Tennessee and Georgia. McCain finally wins his home turf in Arizona.

10:33 PM EST Update: Romney picks up the North Dakota caucus.

10:11 PM EST Update: Huckabee speaks and takes a shot at Romney. “People have been saying it’s a two-man race. It is, and we’re in it.” That will sound rather empty if Romney ends the day with more delegates, as is likely if he shows strong in California.

10:02 PM EST Update: FOX called Oklahoma for McCain. Utah polls just closed and immediately called for Romney, obviously.

9:21 PM EST Update: FOX calls New York for McCain. No surprise there. Still no call in Arizona.

9:03 PM EST Update: Echoing what we saw earlier, FOX is saying they cannot yet call Arizona, John McCain’s home state. He’ll probably end up winning, but even the fact that it’s remotely in play is a blow to McCain, and shows just how much his immigration position has alienated Republicans.

8:28 PM EST Update: Polls in Arkansas will close momentarily. Huckabee will be called the winner immediately.

8:05 PM EST Update: Right off the bat we see McCain taking Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey. No surprises there. Huckabee will Take Alabama and Romney has his home state of Massachusetts.

7:58 PM EST Update: Georgia is still trickling in. It looks like a battle between McCain and Huckabee, with Romney 10% behind in a distant third.

Nine states are about to close their polls.

7PM EST Update: NRO has some exit poll numbers from key states.

Romney had been surging in California leading up to the vote, but so far these very early numbers (which won’t include California’s large percentage of absentee voting) show McCain up on Romney 40-36%. In MO, which is an important bell-weather and winner-take-all state, the race is even with Romney barely up 34-32 over McCain.

Possible bad news for McCain in his home state of Arizona, where he has only a 44-39 lead over Romney.

Polls have just closed in another important and competitive state of Georgia, which is way too close to call and the exit polls have a three way dead heat.

It’s a big day for the Republican nomination. McCain comes in the heavy favorite following a flurry of endorsements and media pronouncements that he has the race wrapped up. With a strong national lead in the polls, McCain is sitting pretty. Huckabee still has no shot at the nomination but is staying in to help McCain. Romney’s objective is to stay within 250 or so delegates of McCain. If he can do that he can stick it out for the long haul. With a recent poll showing him up by 7 in California (note: California is not state-wide winner-take-all, but awarded county by county), that’s certainly a possibility.

Our first news of the night comes from West Virginia. In what will no doubt further fuel rumors of a McCain-Huckabee alliance, Huckabee has won the closed convention after being behind Romney 41% to 33% after one round. In this caucus style convention, voting is conducted until a candidate receives a majority, with the lowest supported candidate being removed after each round. After the first round, it was Ron Paul that was dropped, and yet all of McCain’s support mysteriously went over to Huckabee, giving him the majority and a 52-47% win over Romney.

McCain’s Straight Talk RINO Express is gaining momentum. Busy working the engines are notorious RINO’s Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, Olympia Snowe, Mel Martinez and Susan Collins. Passengers are encouraged to read the liberal New York Times. Once heralded as the Straight Talk Express, McCain’s repeated lies on his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his false attacks on Mitt Romney and his dishonest rhetoric on immigration have made a mockery of the idea of straight talk and recast his drive-by media powered train as The RINO Express.

The Conservative Movement is being sold down the river by a power hungry republican establishment. Prominent conservatives jumping aboard the RINO Express in hopes of finding favor in a McCain administration will be sorely disappointed. John McCain will have no more use for conservatism or conservatives as President than he’s had as Senator. The republican establishment has sorely underestimated the consequences that neglecting conservatives will have on the party, just as they sorely underestimated what the result would be in 2006 if they didn’t properly address immigration.

With John McCain we’ll get liberal policies on global warming, taxes, first amendment rights and immigration. When these policies fail miserably (as all liberal policies do), there won’t be a democrat to blame them on. John McCain and the sell-out conservatives who have suckered up to him will take the heat, but it will be the republican party as a whole, and ultimately conservatism, that will suffer the most.

Democrats will seize any opportunistic attack they can, regardless of how their own policies contradict their rhetoric. In the latest example of liberal double-speak, several Democrats Senators are simultaneously attacking the President for increasing the deficit while decrying budget cuts.

Democratic Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), and Robert Casey (Pa.) said Wednesday that Americans are paying record interest on a national debt that will reach $10 trillion by the end of this year. But they said President Bush’s budget, to be released on Monday, must not cut funding for a host of federal programs, including health care, Section 8 housing, homelessness assistance, and community development block grants.

“For seven years, Congress and the American people have heard the president give the State of the Union address filled with lofty rhetoric and promising pledges,” Murray said at a press conference.

“And for seven years we’ve wondered if we’ve heard him right when he turned around a few weeks later and gave us a budget filled with dramatic cuts in programs that all our American families depend on,” she added. Listen to Audio

Murray blasted the president for what she said was Bush’s failure to match his budget proposal with the realities facing American families today.

“Talk is cheap,” Murray said. “We are asking the president to put real dollars behind his words in the budget he sends to us next Monday.”

These people should be laughed out of office. That they can display such a cognitive disconnect without any such fear says everything that needs to be said about the usefulness of modern news, which won’t honestly report on such disingenuous arguments.