I find persuasive the arguments of many analysts that the proposal fails because it lifts sanctions before Iran has over time proven that it is committed to abandoning its nuclear weapons program. Perhaps even more importantly, I oppose the agreement because it does not require Iran to stop its funding of Hezbollah and other extremist hoodlums around the world.

But more fundamentally, I oppose the proposal because, while addressing strategic issues, the deal ignores a moral issue, among the most profound of our time. Put simply: Iran sponsors terrorism. I am convinced I could prove that proposition in a court of law, and indeed some Americans have done so. Survivors of terrorist attacks have sued the Iranian government in American courts, and won significant judgments.

But the Iranian government has refused to pay those judgments, and the proposed agreement does nothing to challenge that intransigence. In fact, the agreement would release up to 150 billion dollars of frozen assets to Iran, without requiring that a dime go to paying off the survivors of Iran-sponsored terror.

The sanctions must remain in place until Tehran renounces terrorism, stops funding Hezbollah, and honors judgments awarding compensation to those whose loved ones have been killed in past attacks. Can we get such a deal? In urging the nation to support the end of sanctions, the president has said that the deal he presented to Congress is the best one that could be negotiated. Others disagree. But whoever is right, one thing is certain: no agreement is worth supporting if it undermines the most basic principles that must govern relations among civilized nations.

“There is no meaningful verification,” Stein elaborated, in an opinion piece in The American Spectator. “The sanctions are already basically gone. The President is paying Iran over $100 billion to go forward with making a nuclear bomb and having the rockets to deliver it. We have basically been swindled into allowing the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons without any penalty – indeed, with cash and prizes. Iran has sworn to use these weapons to obliterate not only Israel but every Jew on earth.

“Again, this could not have been an accident. It has to have been the working out of some deep unconscious rage at Israel, Jews, and at America by the top players in this administration… many of them Jewish or, like Kerry, partly Jewish. Mr Obama has – as I have said before – now signed Israel’s death warrant.”

Only Israel can figure out some way out of it. Perhaps a miraculous anti-missile defense. Perhaps a genuine Doomsday Device which will end all life on earth if Israel is nuked. "We shall see,” Stein wound up. “In the meantime, Mr Obama is in tears that he has been criticized so harshly for an agreement that basically cries out for 'a Holocaust in an afternoon,' as Iranians smilingly call it.”

Recent disclosures by Iran indicate that the recently inked nuclear accord includes a series of side deals on critical inspections regimes that are neither public nor subject to review by the United States. Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador and permanent envoy to the IAEA , stated over the weekend that no country is permitted to know the details of future inspections conducted by the IAEA. In addition, no US inspectors will be permitted to enter Iran’s nuclear sites.

“The provisions of a deal to which the IAEA and a second country are parties are confidential and should not be divulged to any third country, and as Mr Kerry discussed it in the Congress, even the US government had not been informed about the deal between IAEA and Iran,” Najafi was quoted as saying by Iran’s Mehr News Agency. Due to the secretive nature of these agreements, IAEA officials advising with lawmakers are barred from revealing to them the details of future inspections.

The revelation has rattled lawmakers on Capitol Hill, several of whom are now rallying colleagues to sign a letter to President Barack Obama protesting these so-called side deals.

History has shown that when a government wants to solidify its power, it has to turn its subjects into taxpayers. The Roman Empire demanded high tribute payments from every tribe it had newly conquered. And the United States developed from a commonwealth to a federal state when, in the 18th century, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton achieved uniform duties and taxes for the entire union, initially on whisky, because it was so lucrative.

Politicians in the euro zone are now seeking to emulate the historic model from the early years of the United States. The unnerving bargaining over the latest Greece bailout program has led the leaders of the monetary union to conclude that the euro zone has to become more tightly joined together politically. European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi wants stricter rules for the banking union. French President François Hollande is calling for a separate economic government for the monetary union. And in Brussels and Berlin alike, financial experts are devising plans to provide the Euro Group with the same tool that has proven to be so successful throughout history: its own tax.

If the plans were implemented, it would constitute the breaking of a taboo for the Continent. The people are used to the fact that some powers are shifted to Brussels as part of European unification. But there is one thing even the most devoted proponents of Europe had shied away from until now: giving the EU the right to impose taxes, a power many felt the member states should retain. It had long been a given that this was something the European people would never accept.

The plans are still in their early stages, but it is already clear who could lose out if they became reality: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, supposedly the most powerful woman on the Continent.

For years, she has wanted to strengthen the monetary union with more intergovernmental agreements. But now her new rival, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who also advocates a financial government for the euro zone under the auspices of the EU, could have his way. The only question is: Are the member states willing to relinquish their national sovereignty rights to Brussels, at least in part, in such important areas as budgets and taxation? And how will this sit with citizens, who already feel that EU technocrats are controlling their lives?

The hurdles are high, and yet there is a growing recognition that a new principle will probably have to be added to the principles of Chancellor Merkel's crisis policy soon. If the economic government fails, so will the euro.

“Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith.

Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect for each others beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God.”

According to Yahoo News, that hasn’t stopped angry animal rights and anti-hunting activists from ruining the life of Dr Palmer, with some calling for his arrest, extradition and even death for hunting the lion with a bow and arrow and finishing it off with a gun. But most people in Zimbabwe don’t care about the dead lion, as they have much greater problems to deal with, such as an 80 percent unemployment rate, insane monetary inflation and a hugely corrupt government.

“Are you saying that all this noise is about a dead lion? Lions are killed all the time in this country,” said Tryphina Kaseke, a used-clothes hawker on the streets of Harare. “What is so special about this one?” The truth is, most locals in Zimbabwe actually look forward to the big game hunts that Westerners engage in, as the high price tag for the hunts means money pumped into the local economy, not to mention the meat from such hunts is required by law to be given to local tribes and villages.

“Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father of two. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange.” Lions and other large animals are typically viewed as dangerous by the local population, and if these animals are not hunted, their populations will explode and bring about all sorts of other issues, like rampant disease and increased attacks on people.

If only as much outrage over a dead and dismembered lion were directed at those who kill and dismember hundreds of thousands of babies per year, our society might have a moral leg to stand on.

The development of so-called “gene drive” technology promises to revolutionise medicine and agriculture because it can in theory stop the spread of mosquito-borne illnesses, such as malaria and yellow fever, as well as eliminate crop pests and invasive species such as rats and cane toads.

However, scientists at the forefront of the development believe that in the wrong hands gene-drive technology poses a serious threat to the environment and human health if accidentally or deliberately released from a laboratory without adequate safeguards. Some believe it could even be used as a terrorist bio-weapon directed against people or livestock because gene drives – which enable GM genes to spread rapidly like a viral infection within a population – will eventually be easy and cheap to generate.

“Just as gene drives can make mosquitoes unfit for hosting and spreading the malaria parasite, they could conceivably be designed with gene drives carrying cargo for delivering lethal bacterial toxins to humans,” said David Gurwitz, a geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Israel.

The clinics’ system to make the quick cash was quite simple. The abortionist would move from one room to the next, performing abortion after abortion, often without cleaning up between abortions, according to Everett. In addition, Everett said that the counselors at the clinics are more like telemarketers. They are trained to schedule abortions and use wording to eliminate a potential clients’ fears and objections concerning abortion.

Everett, who left the abortion industry after a Christian business counselor she hired led her to Christ, also talked about how damaging government-funded sex education programs are. In her speech at the Rose Dinner, she took aim at the programs for stealing away the innate modesty of children and creating a rift between children and their parents.

She says that the programs aim to teach children that talking to their parents about sex is uncomfortable and then they offer to be the people the children turn to for support. She says that girls are then provided with low dose birth control, which is ineffective if not taken at the same time each and every day, which is close to impossible for any teenager. When the girls get pregnant, they then turn to abortion clinics, she says.

Once Everett admitted to herself that she was a “baby-killing” and “woman-killing woman” she finally noticed the harm she and her abortion clinics were doing for a quick buck. For the first time, she took notice of the “girls sitting in the corner crying” at the clinic. She saw how her own abortion had lead her down this path of pain. She turned away from the industry and started a foundation to help women and girls facing crisis pregnancies.

Outrage from progressives has essentially ruined the Kleins’ lives, but journalist and author Jack Cashill, who wrote the forthcoming “Scarlet Letters: The Ever-Increasing Intolerance of the Cult of Liberalism,” believes this incident ultimately is not about “gay marriage.” Rather, it is part of an attempt by hardcore progressives to destroy Christianity and the nuclear family.

He noted Muslims are not tolerant of homosexuality either, but outrage among “gay” rights advocates has focused on the refusal of Christians, such as the Kleins, to promote homosexuality.

“If they were serious about gay rights, they would take this battle to not only the Islamic countries, but to the Islamic mosques in the United States,” Cashill told WND in an interview. “[Muslims] are not even questioned. They’re not in the picture. It’s really an attack on Judeo-Christian values.”