The Magnificent Mary Leakey Essay -- Exploratory Essays Research Paper

The Magnificent Mary Leakey Mary Leakey died on December 9, 1996. She loved to smoke Dutch cigars, as if everyday were some kind of celebration; strong tobacco was one of her vices. Hers was a life of constant commencement. She never attended colleges, though she did receive numerous honorary degrees in Britain and America: "I have worked for them by digging in the sun," she said. She first gained recognition in 1948 for discovering a 16 million year old fossilized cranium of a hominid thought to be the missing link, one she called "Proconsul". But she only found it and named it. "I never felt interpretation was my job," she said. "What I came to do was to dig up things and take them out as well as I could. There is so much that we do not know, and the more we do know, the more we realize that early interpretations were completely wrong. It is good mental exercise, but people get so hot and nasty about it, which I think is ridiculous." She really was a no-nonsense woman, one who was perhaps more preoccupied with nonsense than she realized. As an explorer of concrete material, her primary and determined pursuit of fossils, bones, and human origins antagonized the speculative nature of her profession. She found beauty in the tangible history of human ancestry. "What was it like?" was simply not a question she entertained. More important was the question "What was it?" Once, three "man-apes," as Leakey called them, traversed a plain, accidentally leaving some of the most formidable scientific data we have about our ancestor-cousins. Is that how it happens? Is our universe a continuum of chaos out of which we construct a simplicity that is both pleasing and functional? And is ours a reality by these attempts—or perhap... ...familiarity. Embarkation begins with a choice, and choice is a product of self-consciousness. We have been alive for so long, as has love and anger, resolve and obsession. With the million and one options that fight for our attention in a hyper-society like our own, reluctance can cost us everything. As a society, as a species, progress is our handle, the drive toward better and more hopeful situations is our enterprise. But the drive is also a specific one, localized and partitioned in every individual to find the next best condition. For senior preschoolers to senior graduate students to senior citizens transitioning into eternity, the origin of our motions are the same: the inescapable need to move on as where we are no longer suits us. Who were these individuals? Who were these three who walked together in the rain? The answer is simple and magnificent. The Magnificent Mary Leakey Essay -- Exploratory Essays Research Paper The Magnificent Mary Leakey Mary Leakey died on December 9, 1996. She loved to smoke Dutch cigars, as if everyday were some kind of celebration; strong tobacco was one of her vices. Hers was a life of constant commencement. She never attended colleges, though she did receive numerous honorary degrees in Britain and America: "I have worked for them by digging in the sun," she said. She first gained recognition in 1948 for discovering a 16 million year old fossilized cranium of a hominid thought to be the missing link, one she called "Proconsul". But she only found it and named it. "I never felt interpretation was my job," she said. "What I came to do was to dig up things and take them out as well as I could. There is so much that we do not know, and the more we do know, the more we realize that early interpretations were completely wrong. It is good mental exercise, but people get so hot and nasty about it, which I think is ridiculous." She really was a no-nonsense woman, one who was perhaps more preoccupied with nonsense than she realized. As an explorer of concrete material, her primary and determined pursuit of fossils, bones, and human origins antagonized the speculative nature of her profession. She found beauty in the tangible history of human ancestry. "What was it like?" was simply not a question she entertained. More important was the question "What was it?" Once, three "man-apes," as Leakey called them, traversed a plain, accidentally leaving some of the most formidable scientific data we have about our ancestor-cousins. Is that how it happens? Is our universe a continuum of chaos out of which we construct a simplicity that is both pleasing and functional? And is ours a reality by these attempts—or perhap... ...familiarity. Embarkation begins with a choice, and choice is a product of self-consciousness. We have been alive for so long, as has love and anger, resolve and obsession. With the million and one options that fight for our attention in a hyper-society like our own, reluctance can cost us everything. As a society, as a species, progress is our handle, the drive toward better and more hopeful situations is our enterprise. But the drive is also a specific one, localized and partitioned in every individual to find the next best condition. For senior preschoolers to senior graduate students to senior citizens transitioning into eternity, the origin of our motions are the same: the inescapable need to move on as where we are no longer suits us. Who were these individuals? Who were these three who walked together in the rain? The answer is simple and magnificent.

music in education and health :: essays research papers

MUSIC AS A TEACHING AND HEALING TOOL Music is a remarkable tool to be used to dramatically increase learning and healing in the classroom. Its successful role has been documented throughout the academic community, yet, its use has not been widely utilized by teachers. Since Aristotle, music has been considered one of the forces used to teach. Moreover, for more than half a century the psychiatric and the educational communities have studied, analyzed and implemented the use of music as a healing tool and as a way to enhance the mental capacities of their respective group of studies. It has been discovered in controlled settings that certain type of classical music would enhance the student’s concentration time. The specific issues addressed by the study and practice of music has been divided into specific areas of the mental process. For example, learning a musical instrument helps the students the skill of repetition as a method to learn and to recollect information. Creativity and imagination also are improved when the student or the patient is taught basic concepts of musical composition. It is believed that music unleashes creative forces within a human being that are only accessed with artistic endeavors. Even abstract traits like sensibility are retrieved with music studies and the practice of a musical instrument. There is a perceptible connection between learning and music that teachers should exploit in the learning environment, regardless of the age of the student. Music could be used effectively from the time the child is in the womb and right through the formative years. While addressing the healing benefits of music it is noted the array of uses for this art. Every body in all aspects of life, to enhance moods, to depress moods, to pacify, or to reminisce, uses music. Clinicians have experimented with this art for various decades. Psychiatric patience are administered a dose of soothing music to lower the anxiety levels. Office managers utilize it to energize the work place. Learning centers use baroque music to enhance memory skills. Health experts praise the rewards of music in the digestive and central nervous systems, the enhancement of attention spans of patients of HDD and in addition promote interaction in persons who struggle with their self-esteem. Some specialists even use the term music therapy when using it to treat certain cognitive or emotional problems. Music as a therapeutic tool is not only restricted the use of recorded material or the playing of musical instruments.

Social Work Essay

History of social work influences current professional practice In this essay I will outline the historical origins of social work in Ireland. I will examine how the profession emerged from charity work in the 19th century to evolve into the profession it is today. To begin with it is important to define the term social work. The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) defines social work as ‘work of benefit to those in need of help, especially professional or voluntary service of a specialised nature concerned with community welfare and family or social problems arising mainly from poverty, mental or physical handicap, maladjustment, delinquency etc.’ According to Skehill (1999) social work in Ireland has evolved over for phases all of which will be discussed in this essay. The first of these was the emergence of social work in the 19th century through voluntary work carried out by various organisations, followed by the early 20th century when professional social work in Irela nd began, the third phase as described by Skehill (1999) saw the growth in social work employment and training in Ireland. The final phase in the history of social work brings us from the 1950’s up to the present day which has seen the evolution of social work into the profession it is today. According to Skehill (1999) social work in most cases around the world has emerged from voluntary philanthropy. This is true for the case of social work in Ireland. The history of social work in Ireland begins in the late 19th century, in which religion and charity played important roles. The beginning of social work can be related to charity work. In England work similar to that of social work today was carried out by the Charitable Organisation Society. In Ireland in 1902 G.W. Williams developed a register for all charities operating in Dublin. He found that there were four hundred and one charities in Dublin at that time. All of these charities were operating separately. Charity work and philanthropy during the 19th century in Ireland was organised by various charities, institutions and individuals, each o f these worked individually to help the poor and those in need. Their work was in areas such as providing material resources, parenting skills and education. The rational for this philanthropy included a humanitarian concern, a desire to regulate the poor and in particular to regulate women and a concern for maintaining social order and morality. This philanthropy work that was carried out in the 19th century can now be identified as various professions such as  teaching, nursing and social work. Along with this work and in addition to it Catholic and Protestant religious orders were carrying out charity work such as home visits to the poor, visiting prisons, workhouses, setting up orphanages and schools and providing homes for unmarried mothers. The rivalry between the religions meant that in addition to providing for the poor they were also trying to promote their religion. As stated in Luddy (1995) the differences between the Catholic and Protestant charities was the way in which they carried out their work. Catholic run charities tended to focus on providing a range of services, whereas Protestant charities tended to provided services on a specialist basis. Religious orders at the time were opposed to State intervention in relation to educational and residential services and also more broadly within the area of philanthropy in the community. This was based on the belief that charity could be best provided by voluntary services, who could distinguish between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. Catholicism remained very strong and influential in Ireland and so Catholic values and principles became a central aspect to social work in Ireland up to the 1960’s (Skehill, 1999). The early 20th century brought change to social work in Ireland. In the early decades of the century, particularly until the 1930’s social work continued to be dominated by voluntary charity work and religious orders, who focused on providing relief for the poor and providing institutional care for children, women, the disabled, mentally ill and others in need. Much of the charity work carried out at this time was focused on providing help for the ‘deserving’ poor (Skehill, 1999). The Catholic Church continued to be influential in the delivery of social work and it saw social work as a means of providing spiritual assistance to the poor. Those who were deemed ‘undeserving’ could avail of charity services if they would engage with the Catholic Church. As stated in Skehill (1999) An Annual Report in 1922 by the National Council of the Society of St Vincent de Paul explains how one man who was seen as being ‘undeserving’ was given charitable help when he agreed to return to his religion. However the 20th century was also the time when social work began to become more professionalised and emerged in Ireland as an occupation. In 1912 the first college course in Civic and Social Work was established in Alexandra College in Dublin. According to Skehill (1999) In 1919 the first social worker was employed in Ireland by the Adelaide  Hospital, Dublin, Miss Alcock was employed to work with individuals and families. Following the employed of the first social worker, during the 1930’s and the 1940’s a significant number of social workers were employed in hospitals. In these early years of social work education, there was a range of views on what was the best kind of social work teaching. Despite courses being offered by the Civic Institute of Ireland, most aspiring Irish social workers travelled to England or America for professional social work training. The 20th century saw the growth and evolution of social work in Ireland both in terms of a growing number of trained and employed social workers and also the expansion of the voluntary and charity social work, very little difference existed between voluntary and professional social workers at this time (Skehill, 1999). The third phase in the history of social work in Ireland according to Skehill (1999) included the traditional charity work carried out by the Catholic Church but also saw the evolution of social work as an occupation . The Catholic Church exerted much power over the Irish State and society, this meant that social services developed in such a way as so the Church and its voluntary organisations could maintain power and control over social services such as childcare, education, family support and working with unmarried mothers in order to enforce their ideas in relation to the family and morality. From the mid 1960’s the Irish State began to develop a comprehensive welfare programme which saw much of the responsibility for social services shift from the Catholic Church to the State. The profession of social work began to make significant progress following the States creation of positions in the public service. Yet the expansion in social work occurred in an ad hoc nature based on the existing needs in areas such as health and probation with very little future planning. The major development in social work during the 1950’s and 1960’s was the expansion of training in Ireland. The first social science degree in Ireland was introduced in 1954 in University College Dublin. Following this Trinity College, Dublin introduced a social science degree in 1962, followed three years later by University College Cork. These social science degrees covered many social work topics and allowed graduates to work as social workers without being professional qualified. Althou gh the number of social workers was still relatively low by the 1950’s the profession had expanded and social workers were now working in areas such as psychiatry, adoption  and fostering (Skehill, 1999). As already discussed the number of professional social workers in Ireland began to grow form the 1950’s, however the number of social workers in employment in the 1970’s remained significantly low. A report by the Irish Association of Social Workers in 1971 states that there were ninety seven social workers with post graduate training working in Ireland. The majority of these social workers were employed as medical social workers. In addition to this social workers were employed by voluntary organisations, in industrial services and as psychiatric social workers. Only one social worker, who had a post graduate qualification, was employed working with children (Skehill, 1999).Phase four in the history of social work in Ireland according to Skehill (1999) is defined by the expansion of the profession and increased training of social workers. From the 1990’s onwards there were increased employment opportunities. Much of this increased employment for social workers c ame from statutory agencies such as the Department of Health, Probation and Welfare services and Local Authorities. As stated in Christie (2005) by the end of the decade there were 1,390 social workers in Ireland, this number increased to just fewer than 2,000 by 2001. By 2001, the majority of social workers were working with children. Much of this increase in social work with children can be attributed to the increased awareness of child abuse and the raise in reported child abuse cases (Ferguson and O’Reilly, 2001). From a legislative basis The Child Care Act 1991, The Children Act 1997 and the Children Act 2001 have all included for the employment of additional social workers (Irish Statute Book, 2013). As have reports such as The Ryan Report (Ireland. Department of Health and Children, 2009). In 1995 The National Validation Board on Social Work Qualifications and Training was set up. The aim of this organisation was to award the National Qualification of Social Work (NQSW) to professionally accredited social workers. The organisation has done much work to raise the profile of social work in Ireland and to expand the knowledge and information in relation to social work. From 2013 social workers who wish to work in Ireland must be registered with CORU. CORU was set up to promote high standards of conduct, education, training and competence for social workers and other health and social care professionals (CORU, 2013). In conclusion social work in Ireland has had an interesting history from its initial development as  charity work by religious and secular organisations, through its educational development to its professional development. Social work has developed as a profession from its historical origins, where in 1919 there was just one employed social worker in the country, to today where there is over 2,000 social workers employed in Ireland (Trinity College Dublin, 2014).

Families: Family and Long Time Essay

There were more marriages and less divorces. People got married earlier. They had more children. The husband was the bread-winner and the wife stayed at home to look after the children and do the housework. It follows that very few women had a job. A long time ago several generations lived together under the same root: the grand-parents, the parents, the children and sometimes nor yet the grand-grand- parents. Families today: There are less marriages and more divorces. There are a lot of one-parents families nd there are less children In a family. The people get married later. The couples often live together without getting married, that calls cohabitation. The woman also have a job and go out to work. The husband and the wife share the housework and look after the children together. As I write there are less children In the families. That means that there are a lot of only child. Being an only child has advantages and disadvantages too. Advantages: You have privacy, you can do what you want. You don’t have to share things with your brothers and sisters. You don’t have to adapt to anybody. The parents have more time, energy and even money for you. Disadvantages: You don’t always have someone to talk to or play with, you often can feel lonely. You are alone to do the housework and the homework. You can become more selfish, intolerant, spoilt and willful. Contrarily growing up In a big family Is a bit different. Advantages: You always have someone to talk to or play with. The brothers and sisters can halp each other e. g. at homework. You can share the housework too. You earn to cooperate, to share things with others e. g. the room, toys or books. Yo learn to make efforts if you want to get something. You learn to adapt to the others. You can become less selfish, more tolerant and understanding. Disadvantages: You have no privacy, It’s difficult to remain alone and do what you want. You have to share a lot of things, to adapt your brothers and sisters. Sometimes you have to wear handed-down clothes if you are the younger child. The parents have less time, energy and money for each children.

Ethical Leader

An ethical leader is a leader who has good virtue characteristics as a human being that displays good quality leadership that is thoughtful of others that shows caring and kindness and believes in fairness to others. A good ethical leader encourages others to do the right thing and lead others in the right directions of making the right decisions. This paper contains virtues and vice on Bill Gates charity organization and business affairs. The evidence is shown that Bill Gates is a man of many virtues proven by a charity organization called Bill and Melinda Foundation. However, Gates has proven to be a strong ethical leader there are some who believe otherwise when it comes to unethical practice as a businessman of some of the top largest company. The goal of this paper is to focus on effective leadership of Bill Gates should be handled in an ethical manner on managing business and employees with consideration and respect. Virtues of Bill GatesThere are two virtues about Bill Gates that best describes as an effective ethical leader of Bill and Melinda Foundation. The first virtue is sincerity is one of the characteristic traits of Gates. According to Oxford Dictionary, the definition of sincerity is the quality of being free from pretense, deceit, or hypocrisy (oxforddictionary.com). Sincerity meant as being generous and kind and caring to others such as individuals who in need of help in all lives. The Bill and Melinda foundation is a charity foundation that helps and improves poverty, education, children well-being, and health. Gates donated billions of dollars towards foundation charity that contributes to people around the world. The foundation has helped proven the sincerity virtue of Gates moral characteristic traits in the most critical issues that needed the most. There are many evidences that Gates invested into healthcare of 4.2billion dollars and 1.5billion for the homeless Lancet, (2007). Gates has well proven to help save and change world by creating Bill and Melinda foundation which is the world's largest charity foundation.The second virtue is wisdom that Gates has proven to be good moral character by building a successful foundation of charity by organizing, gathering information, and demonstrating knowledge of what are critical issues that needed to be addressed to make the world a better place. The Oxford dictionary gives the definition of wisdom as the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise (oxforddictionary.com). Wisdom is meant as having the knowledge and good decision making for an effective benefit. There are two types of wisdom such as theoretical and practical. The theoretical wisdom is explained as to understanding and comprehending. According to Brusseau (2012), describes practical or sometimes called prudence as the learned knowledge that being able to apply it in real life. Bill Gates of Vice as InsensibilitySome believe that Gates has another side that made Gates one of the richest entrepreneurs in the world. Bill Gates has a number of successful businesses. One of the companies, in particular, is a waste management company called Republic Service. Republic Service that Gates own is one of the world's second-largest companies in America. Accusations have been made against Gates has mistreated the employees of Republic Service with unethical practice and standards. The three major concerns that workers are disputing over retirement funds being taken, unpaid overtime, and illegal abandoning contracts employee already agreed that was with the union. This caused employees to protest and being lockout Republic Service.The term insensibility is one of example that applies to Gates on this matter. Assuming that Gates is guilty of this unethical behavior, this is an act of no consideration for the employees if employees' benefits were taken that employee had worked for many years at the waste management company. The dictionary gives the definition of insensibility as incapable of feeling or perceiving; deprived of sensation; unconscious, as a person after a violent blow (dictionary.com). Assuming that allegations are true this unkindly act of unethical practice, then evidence has shown that Gates should show more of effective ethical practice and standards towards employees with consideration and respect. Conclusion Bill Gates is believed to be a good example of an ethical leader. Bill Gates is a self-made billionaire who was the creator of Microsoft and other software. Gates had changed the lives of people all over the world with the innovation of Microsoft. Bill Gates has a very successful resume and continues to pursuing on helping save the world which is an inspiration to everyone. Bill Gates has a way of touching people hearts because of the concerns of many critical issues that the world is faced with. Gates has a way of tackling major issues that no one wants to deal with let alone donate an unlimited amount of funding so give thanks to Gates.Despite what others are saying, many have an issue with Gates the billionaire money which shouldn't matter. After all, there are always some allegations or accusations that are being made about someone especially like Bill Gates that is rich and famous can't expect to have enemies. Overall, what should matter if Gates behaving unethical manner. The value of employees should be held to the highest standards of ethical behavior with the utmost respect? Let's concentrate on what all said to be practiced and what all is said to be preached. That is, being an ethical leader who shows, believes, and live by values, beliefs, and morals in life at all times.

Curley’s Wife Essay

The character of Curley’s Wife is one of the most significant characters in the book as she is linked to the key themes of loneliness and dreams, which ultimately leads to both her death and Lennie’s death. Steinbeck uses the character of Curley’s Wife as a microcosm for the prejudice that faced all women in 1930’s America. Like most of the main characters in the novel, Curley’s wife is significantly related to the theme of dreams. Her role in this theme is slightly more important than others, however, because of her position as the only female character on the farm. The fact that she is the only woman makes her opinions and actions representative of all women living in the Great American Depression. â€Å"Coulda been in the movies, an’ had nice clothes- all them nice clothes like they wear. An’ I coulda sat in them big hotels, an’ had pitchers took of me. † Here, we see how Curley’s Wife, despite not having a name, has dreams and still relies on those dreams as a way of escaping the loneliness in the farm. Curley’s Wife is a stereotype of many other women in 1930’s America who turned to men as a result of failed dreams, and chose to take the easy route rather than be crushed by America’s cruel judgement of women. Curley’s Wife is very significant to the ending of the novel as her death is the downfall of George, Lennie and Candy’s united dream. Without this death, George, Lennie and Candy may still have gone on to live their shared dream, but because of it George had to kill Lennie. The significance of Curley’s Wife is ironically also shown threw the insignificance with which the workers in the novel treat her. Within her very first introduction, Steinbeck offers a glimpse of her role as the promiscuous troublemaker and the way in which the other characters respond to this. George, in particular, illustrates how others judge or misconceive her solely because of her gender; †Jesus what a tramp, so that’s what Curley picks for a wife†. Here, Steinbeck uses George to represent the male population of America and their attitude to women in the 1930’s. The character of Curley’s Wife is particularly significant in this microcosm as she conveys the insignificance of women and their reliance on men to just ‘pick’ and drop them on their own accord. The disregard with which Curley’s Wife is treated continues through to the very lowest positions in the farm’s hierarchy. Despite being the daughter-in-law of the boss, Curley’s Wife still suffers abuse from George, Candy and even Lennie who often refer to her as â€Å"jail-bait† and a â€Å"tart†. These derogatory statements illustrate how Curley’s Wife is made to feel worthless solely because of her gender. Curley’s Wife is significant as she presents the backward attitude of most men in 1930’s America who were scared to treat women with respect for fear of evoking conflict and losing their job, something so hard to come by in the harsh economic times. Steinbeck uses the character of Curley’s Wife to convey her dysfunctional marriage, something that was common in 1930’s America. Curley disrespects his wife and she is constantly the source of his objectification. This is most evident through her name ‘Curley’s Wife’ which clearly conveys the hold and possessive nature that Curley has over her. Steinbeck’s use of withholding information here, also suggests that she is not deserving of her own name and highlights her inferior position on the farm. â€Å"I don’t like Curley. He ain’t a nice fella. † Here Steinbeck shows how Curley’s Wife did not marry for love and demonstrates a common situation in America where women often used their sexuality to get them married for stabilisation during the Great Depression. Curley’s Wife is also a symbol of the mistreatment of women. â€Å"Curley says he’s keeping that hand soft for his wife†. Here, we see how the other characters on the farm regard Curley’s wife as a mere sex object solely because of her gender and her dependency on her husband. This serves as a microcosm for 1930’s America, as the general consensus was that the sole purpose of women was to meet the needs of their husbands. A final way in which Curley’s Wife is significant in the novel is through her link to the theme of loneliness. Curley’s Wife is one of the loneliest characters in the novel, which is overlooked at first but becomes more apparent as the novel continues. â€Å"Why can’t I talk to you? I never get to talk to nobody. I get awful lonely. † Curley’s Wife is constantly rejected by her husband and to combat this she tries her best to attract the attention of the workers. She does this by going to extremes with her physical appearance; â€Å"She had full, rouged lips and wide-spaced eyes, heavily made up. † This shows her desperation to be noticed, which is understandable given the cruel judgement and disregard with which she and many other American women were faced. The loneliness of Curley’s Wife and her child-like search for attention was eventually the death of her. In her happiness at being noticed for once, Curley’s Wife misjudged Lennie’s capabilities, which was what ultimately led to her inevitable death. Curley’s Wife represents the lonely people in America and in the world whose cry for attention turns out to be their downfall. In conclusion Curley’s Wife is extremely significant to the novel and serves as a symbol for prejudice and objectification in 1930’s America. With the help of this character Steinbeck can clearly illustrate some of the novels key themes of loneliness, dreams and relationships from the perspective of the only woman in this novel.

Benjamin Netanyahu - Joint Session of Congress Speech 2015

Binjamin Netanyahu Third Speech to a Joint Session of Congress delivered 3 March 2015, Washington, D.C. Speaker of the House, John Boehner, President Pro Tem, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, House Minority, Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader, Harry Reid Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet. I guess it’s true what they say: You can’t keep a good man down. My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress. I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention. I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel. The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel. Now, some of that is widely known. Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. Some of what the President has done for Israel is less well known. I called him in 2010 when we had the [Mount] Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment; or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists. In each of those moments, I called the President, and he was there. And some of what the President has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support. And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome. Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome. Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel. My friends, I’ve come here today because, as Prime Minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated. He tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed. For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The six million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also to the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to export our revolution throughout the entire world.1 I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and thedifference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that. Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke choke-point on the world’s oil supply. Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have have been anything but mock, and the targets have been all too real. Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C. In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. So at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror. Now, two years ago we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change. Some moderation. Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists, and executes even more prisoners than before. Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that. Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of â€Å"Death to America,† that same America that it calls the â€Å"Great Satan,† as loud as ever. Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America. And don’t be fooled: The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America. Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS: The enemy of your enemy is your enemy. The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons, and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember I’ll say it one more time the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen. But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them. Let me explain why: While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it. Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran. The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed. Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s. And if if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter. True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them. Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb. Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. Now, I know this is not going to come a shock as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them. The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program.2 Iran was also caught caught twice, not once, twice operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed. Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, â€Å"If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that [Iran] doesn’t have one.†3 Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of grave concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal, because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs. Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium.4 With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision. My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. Now I want you to think about that: The former sponsor The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy. And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the Earth, including to every part of the United States. So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program; and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb. So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse? Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite would only wet Iran’s appetite for more. Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism? Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home. This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb. And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. If anyone thinks anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future. We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things: First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state. Thank you. If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires. If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do? Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table and this often happens in a Persian bazaar call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do. And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it. Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal a better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time; a better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends; a better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb; a better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country no country has a greater stake no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East, and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity. You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire. My friends, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, â€Å"never again.† And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past: not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace. But I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. Weve restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldier who soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why This is why, as Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel. You stand with Israel because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors. Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land. And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today: Chizku ve’imtzu, al tiru ve’al te’artzu m’pneihem. â€Å"Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.†5 My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength, and hope. May God bless the State of Israel and may God bless the United States of America. 1 Ruhollah Khomeini cited in Hoffman, B. (1988). The contrasting ethical foundations of terrorism in the 1980s. The Rand Corporation. 2 Statement by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano on 2 March 2015 confirmed: The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. However, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. (Source: iaea.org) 3 Former IAEA Deputy Director for Safeguards Olli Heinonen, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, 1 March 2013 4 Statement by Ruhollah Khomeini on 7 July 2014: Our officials say we need 190,000 SWU. Perhaps this is not a need this year or in two years or five years, but this is the countrys absolute need. (Source: uk.reuters.com) 5 Quoted from the first part of Deuteronomy 31:6. The entire passage, a parting exhortation from Moses to the Israelites just prior to their entry into the Promised Land, reads as follows: â€Å"Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them, because G-d your Lord is the One who is going with you, and He will not fail you or forsake you.