Bernie Sanders" Solution For Peace In The Middle East

Senator Bernie Sanders has written an excellent op-ed for The New York Times. Here is just a small part of it, where he offers what is necessary for a solution: 

Mr. Netanyahu has made clear where he stands on these critical issues. So should we. If asking nicely worked, we wouldn’t be in this position. The only way these necessary changes will happen is if the United States uses the substantial leverage we have with Israel. And we all know what that leverage is.

For many years, the United States has provided Israel substantial sums of money — with close to no strings attached. Currently, we provide $3.8 billion a year. President Biden has asked for $14.3 billion more on top of that sum and asked Congress to waive normal, already-limited oversight rules. The blank check approach must end. The United States must make clear that while we are friends of Israel, there are conditions to that friendship and that we cannot be complicit in actions that violate international law and our own sense of decency. That includes an end to indiscriminate bombing; a significant pause to the bombing so that massive humanitarian assistance can come into the region; the right of displaced Gazans to return to their homes; no long-term Israeli occupation of Gaza; an end to settler violence in the West Bank and a freeze on settlement expansion; a commitment to broad peace talks for a two-state solution in the wake of the war.

Over the years, people of good will around the world, including Israelis, have tried to address this conflict in a way that brings justice for Palestinians and security for Israel. I, and some other members of Congress, have tried to do what we could. Obviously, we did not do enough. Now we must recommit to this effort. The stakes are just too high to give up.

The Four Solutions To The Climate Change Crisis

The U.N.'s latest report on the climate change crisis was not good. It gave us only about a decade to take the needed actions to stop the crisis from happening -- and the action needed is much more substantial than what is currently being done (or what has been proposed). 

Robert Reich tells us that there are four solutions to this crisis. Those four solutions are:

In light of the latest IPCC report on climate change, it’s crucial we remember these four steps to avoiding a climate catastrophe.

First, create green jobs. Investing in renewable energy could create millions of family sustaining, union jobs and build the infrastructure we need for marginalized communities to access clean water and air.

Second, stop dirty energy. A massive investment in renewable energy jobs isn’t enough to combat the climate crisis. If we are going to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must tackle the problem at its source: Stop digging up and burning more oil, gas, and coal.

Third, kick fossil fuel companies out of our politics. For decades, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP have been polluting our democracy by pouring billions of dollars into our politics and bankrolling elected officials to enact policies that protect their profits. The oil and gas industry spent over $103 million on the 2016 federal elections alone.

Fourth, require the fossil fuel companies that have profited from environmental injustice to compensate the communities they’ve harmed. As if buying off our democracy wasn’t enough, these corporations have also deliberately misled the public for years on the amount of damage their products have been causing. If these solutions sound drastic to you, it’s because they are. They have to be if we have any hope of keeping our planet habitable. The climate crisis is not a far-off apocalyptic nightmare — it is our present day.

GOP Practices A Politics Of Fear - But Offers No Solutions

(Cartoon image is by Clay Jones at claytoonz.com.)

The only thing today's Republicans have to offer is fear. They want you to be afraid of everything except rich white men (their true constituency). But they no solutions beyond inaction, and of course, thoughts and prayers.

The following is an op-ed from Catherine Rampell in The Washington Post:

It’s almost funny, in a twisted sort of way. Election after election, Republicans have based their core political appeal on fear.

And yet — as dual gun massacres this weekend starkly illustrate — they refuse to offer solutions to any of the mortal threats Americans actually face.

President Trump’s closing (losing) message in the midterms was “Be afraid, be very afraid”; he and his co-partisans have lately doubled down on it for 2020. Of course, the perils that Republicans promise to rescue us from are often fictional, or of their own making.

We must fear the coming scourge of socialism (no matter that Trump himself so often advocates command-and-control-style economic policies). Trump likewise stokes public anxiety over “a Market Crash the likes of which has not been seen before” if “anyone but me takes over in 2020” (never mind the market sell-offs triggered by his own trade wars, including on Monday).

 Trump and allies urge us to cower in trepidation from helpless parents and children seeking asylum, a threat so grave they needed to be separated from one another and caged. We must also fear the supposed Muslim and Latino hordes, who threaten to wipe out Anglo-European culture and displace white babies with their own.

These are hardly the only foreigners who should inspire existential dread, according to right-wing fever dreams. Rogue nations should, too, thus justifying enormous increases in our defense budget. Of course, all the nukes and jets in the world won’t protect us from the assault our enemies abroad are currently waging against us, and that Republicans resist confronting: the one on our electoral system.  

Health care likewise tops Americans’ list of worries, and has for the past five years, according to Gallup surveys. But as Americans ration their insulin and panhandle for co-pays on GoFundMe, Republicans offer plans that will reduce lifesaving coverage and shift more costs onto sick patients.

Which brings me to the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence, particularly that perpetrated by white supremacists and other far-right terrorists.

This year alone, there have been at least 255 mass-shooting incidents, according to the Gun Violence Archive . Americans cannot worship, dine, shop, browse a food festival or pass notes in homeroom without worrying about being gunned down: As of 2017, 4 in 10 Americans said they feared being a victim in a mass shooting.

Immigrants and members of other minority populations have heightened reason for fearing firearm violence given the murderous anti-immigrant attacks in El Paso on Saturday that left 22 dead; the slaughters at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, Calif., that together took 12 lives; and other recent hate-filled attacks targeting blacks, Muslims and members of the LGBTQ community.

But when it comes to addressing this mortal fear — as with the others — Republicans suggest there’s simply nothing to be done.

No, Republicans say: We mustn’t admonish political leaders (ahem) whose fearmongering about immigrant “invasions” and “infestations” is echoed in the manifestos of alleged murderers.

Nor should we try to undertake common-sense gun-reform policies that voters from both parties support, such as universal background checks or bans on high-capacity magazines. Recall that Trump threatened to veto two background check bills that passed the House back in February, and that congressional Republicans overwhelmingly opposed.

The real thing to fear, according to Republicans and the gun lobby that controls them, isn’t gun violence but rather liberty-crimping policies that might curb gun violence.

The best effort Republicans make to address American fears of gun massacres involves appeals to mental health improvements. Or, as Trump put it in his speech Monday morning: “Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.”

But even this suggestion rings hollow, given that Republican officials across federal and state governments are actively working to reduce access to mental health care. A federal suit brought by 20 red states and supported by the Trump administration seeks to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act, which extended behavioral health coverage to millions through Medicaid and the essential health benefits required in individual market plans.

Republicans thrive on imagined menaces. Yet when a real-life menace demands action, they dismiss it. What, pray tell, is the party so afraid of?

WaPo Offers Its Solution For Government Shutdown

The government shutdown is entering its second week, and so far, their doesn't seem to be any solution in sight. Trump insists he wants money for his wall -- more than the $1.3 billion Congress offered him. And the Democrats refuse to give him more -- saying there will be no wall.

After first saying he would take the blame for the shutdown, Trump is now trying to pass the blame to Democrats. The public is not buying that. Two new polls show the public is blaming Trump and the Republicans --52% in the Economist/YouGov Poll and 54% in the Reuters/Ipsos Poll.

Trump may think he can get the public on his side by holding out and lying, but that is unlikely -- especially if the new Democratic House sends a bill to the Senate. If the GOP Senate or Donald Trump reject that, it will just further convince the public that they are to blame.

Is there a middle ground that could, or at least should, be acceptable to both sides? The editorial board of The Washington Post believes there is. Here is the solution they offer:

This shutdown is perhaps even more senseless and frustrating than previous ones because the way out is, and has been, perfectly obvious for weeks.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Mr. Trump wants money for his pet border-wall project so badly that he’s willing to stage a partial government shutdown. Democrats should let him have funding for the wall in return for a permanent fix to the immigration status of the “dreamers,” people brought to this country as children without authorization but who have been living otherwise lawful and productive American lives since then.

This would be a grand bargain that would give both sides something to brag about and, in fact, simply calls on them to do a version of a deal that both Democrats and Republicans have at least tentatively embraced in the past. Mr. Trump says he wants to resolve the dreamers’ plight; Democrats have, in the past, voted for enhanced “border security,” including physical barriers.

In that sense, there’s no real issue of principle preventing a bipartisan deal, just the politics of base-pleasing polarization. Congress seriously entertained immigration grand bargains with wall-for-dreamers deals at their core in February and March , but the White House undid them by demanding additional restrictions on legal immigration designed to please the Republican base. That dynamic still informs Mr. Trump’s approach to the current shutdown; his position hardened after he came under attack from right-wing personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who accused him of contemplating a sellout. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, likely next House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), newly beholden to left-wing members of her soon-to-be majority House caucus, has branded a wall “immoral” and sworn that she won’t approve a dollar for it under any circumstances.

Neither side may have as much leverage in this battle as they think. The risks for the GOP are defined by the fact that the border wall remains broadly unpopular outside of Mr. Trump’s base. As for the Democrats, they feel less pressure to deal because of a federal court ruling that has protected the dreamers from deportation. That ruling is by no means permanent, however, especially now that conservatives enjoy a solid 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. A prolonged battle with Mr. Trump over simply funding the government threatens to detract from the new House majority’s legislative agenda for 2019 before Democrats even have a chance to unveil it.

Both parties are still acting as though prolonging a shutdown, and avoiding the wall-for-dreamers deal, is in their political interest, when in fact it’s the deal that would really benefit them in the long run. It would also be the right thing to do.

North Korean Threat Is Not As Simple As Trump Thinks

(This photo of a North Korean Taepodong missile is from BBC News.)

Donald Trump has a simplistic view of the problems facing the United States (both domestic and foreign). And that view that our problems are simple to solve extends to the threat of North Korea having nuclear weapons and developing ballistic missiles that can carry those nuclear bombs.

Trump thinks all we have to do is cajole and/or threaten (with economic sanctions) China into taking care of North Korea -- and if China doesn't do that, then bombing North Korea will solve the problem. That view was also expressed by the vice-president in the last couple of days. And sadly, some politicians on both the left and right who normally have sensible views (like Bernie Sanders and John McClain) are succumbing to Trump's simplistic assessment.

The problem is that most issues are complicated, and cannot be solved with simplistic solutions. And that is true of the North Korean issue. Other countries do not see the issue the same way Americans do, and some of those countries (China and North Korea) are not prone to give in to American threats.

This does not mean the problem can't be solved -- only that the simplistic solutions of threats and military strikes are not likely to work. As past presidents have known, this is a problem requiring a diplomatic solution -- and diplomacy can be complicated and time-consuming, but it works.

These paragraphs from Mark Sumner at Daily Kos give us a glimmer of how complicated the North Korean issue is:

Kim Jong Un could be singularly reluctant to cooperate for a simple reason.

The Taliban didn’t have any nuclear weapons or long range missiles. Afghanistan was bombed and taken over.

Saddam didn’t have any nuclear weapons or long range missiles. Iraq was bombed and taken over.

Assad doesn’t have any nuclear weapons or long range missiles. Syria was bombed and … stay tuned.

That North Korea massively accelerated nuclear ambitions after 2001 and exploded its first test blast in 2006 is no coincidence. US policy often seems to treat North Korean leaderships as unreasoning blowhards who understand that giving up the weapons will lead to being left alone. But that leadership appears to believe exactly the opposite — surrendering the weapons, or even failing to continue with development, is something they see as tantamount to handing over their nation. As futile, and even nonsensical, as North Korea’s bristling, blatant disregard for international agreements, and finger-on-the-trigger actions may seem, the leadership there could well be sincere in the belief that they’re taking the only route to secure the continued existence of the entire regime. 

That’s not a formula that leads toward easy resolution. 

China’s position is also not so easily described. On the one hand, North Korea represents a tiny part of China’s trade, and having a poor, unstable, nuclear-armed neighbor may seem like the sort of situation where helping disarm that neighbor would be a great idea. On the other hand, North Korea holds an out-sized position in China’s recent history. While America sees the Korean War as an ugly, unresolved conflict that represented only the opening act in a East-West conflict—a conflict so drowned out by what came later that it’s been called “the forgotten war”—that’s not how it’s seen in China.

For China, the Korean conflict was the first opportunity for new communist government to challenge nations that had treated it as an afterthought to that point. After being invaded, defeated, and disrespected during World War II, China places a huge amount of pride behind the idea that, just a few years later, they challenged the most powerful military in the world and fought it to a draw. Even if the Korean War didn’t end in the south being completely overrun, the Chinese version of the story treats the war as a huge victory. There are six decades of mythology behind the relationship of North Korea and China, and even if the government is ready to alter that story, it’s unlikely to happen overnight. Or over cake.

U.S. Abstains From Security Council Vote On Israel

The map above (from antiwar.com) is of the West Bank -- land that belongs to the Palestinian people. But, through the continued building of illegal settlements and building of a wall, Israel now controls most of the land (brown areas on the map). It is obvious that Israel has no intention of allowing a "two-state solution" which would require them to give this land back to the Palestinians. Instead, they are boldly and illegally attempting to steal this land and increase the size of their country.

The world knows this (with the exception of right-wing Israeli apologists in the United States) and has attempted many times to condemn this in the United Nations. The United States has always vetoed those resolutions (thereby becoming an accessory in Israel's land theft).

That changed a few days ago. A Security Council resolution condemning the illegal building of settlements passed on a 14 to 0 vote. It passed because the United States, for the first time, did not veto it. Instead, they simply abstained. Finally, the United States felt a moral obligation to stop defending the building of the illegal settlements.

After the U.N. vote, Secretary of State John Kerry gave an important speech that laid out U.S. policy. You can read a full transcript of that speech in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, but I have posted some interesting excerpts from it below:

Throughout his administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which I’ve worked on intensely during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. . . .

Regrettably, some seem to believe that the US friendship means the US must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles -- even after urging again and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect. Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week: “It was to be expected that Israel’s greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share” and veto this resolution. I am compelled to respond that the United States, did in fact vote "in accordance with our values," just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council. They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, cannot be true to our own values -- or even the stated democratic values of Israel -- and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel -- if we allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our eyes. And that’s the bottom line: the vote in the UN was about preserving the two state solution. . . .

On this point, I want to be very clear. No American Administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s. The Israeli Prime Minister himself has noted our unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy. Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel’s back. We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across the UN system. In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic 38 billion dollar Memorandum of Understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the U.S. has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting edge missile defense, and sustain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge for years to come. . . .

Despite our best efforts over the years, the two state solution is now in serious jeopardy. The truth is that trends on the ground –violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation – are destroying hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want. Today, there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both –and it won’t ever really be at peace. . . .

Allies of both sides are content to reinforce this “with us or against us mentality” where too often anyone who questions Palestinian actions is an apologist for the occupation and anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy is cast as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. That’s one of the most striking realties about the current situation: This critical decision about the future – one state or two states -- is effectively being made on the ground every day, despite the expressed opinion of the majority of the people. The status quo is leading towards one state and perpetual occupation, but most of the public either ignores it or has given up hope that anything can be done to change it. . . .

Let’s be clear: settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel’s security; many settlements actually increase the security burden on the IDF. And leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations. Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel’s own laws. They are often located on private Palestinian land and strategically placed to make two states impossible. There are over 100 of these outposts, and since 2011, nearly one third have been – or are being – legalized, despite pledges by past Israeli governments to dismantle many of them. Now, leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented new legislation that would legalize most of the outposts. . . .

Now you may hear that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace because the settlers who don’t want to leave can just stay in Palestine, like the Arab Israelis who live in Israel. But that misses a critical point: the Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israel’s laws. Does anyone really believe the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine? Likewise, some supporters of the settlements argue that the settlers could just stay in their settlements, and remain as Israeli citizens in their separate enclaves in the middle of Palestine, protected by the IDF. There are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Does anyone seriously think that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable Palestinian state? . . .

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals? Nobody has ever provided good answers to those questions because there aren’t any. . . .

Common interests in countering Iran’s destabilizing activities and fighting extremists as well as diversifying their economies have created real possibilities. I have spent a great deal of time with key Arab leaders exploring this, and there is no doubt that they are prepared to have a fundamentally different relationship with Israel. That was stated n the Arab Peace Initiative, and all my recent conversations have confirmed their readiness, in the context of Israeli-Palestinian peace, not just to normalize relations -- but to work openly on securing that peace with significant regional security cooperation. Many have shown a willingness to support serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to take steps on the path to normalization of relations – including public meetings -- providing there is meaningful progress towards a two state solution. That is a real opportunity that should not be missed. . . .

In the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two state solution. We could not in good conscience turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence. It is not in U.S. interests to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. We may not be able to stop them, but we cannot be expected to defend them. And it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own policies. . . .

We must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. We must not give in to those who say what is now must always be, that there is no chance for a better future. Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace – and if they are, we can all help. And for the sake of future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, for all the people of the region, and for the United States, let’s hope they are prepared to make those choices now.

There Are Social Security Solutions The Public Supports

(This cartoon image is by Barry Deutsch at leftycartoons.com.)

We haven't heard much from the Republicans about Social Security in this campaign. There's a reason for that. They have never liked Social Security, and their only ideas to fix its funding problem is to privatize it, cut benefits, or raise the retirement age significantly -- all bad ideas that would hurt seniors.

On the other hand, the Democrats (and their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton) would do none of the GOP options. They want to raise the cap on income taxed for Social Security, increase benefits for those drawing the least in monthly payments, and keep the retirement age where it is (so those who work hard at physical labor are not punished).

What does the general public think? Are there ways to fix Social Security's future funding problem that would not incur the wrath of seniors and other voters? Stephen Kull has written an excellent article about this for The Huffington Post. In it, he shows us that there are solutions that would be supported by a huge majority of the general public. Here is some of that article:

Results from a new survey of more than 8,600 registered voters across the country, conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, suggest that a large majority of Americans are ready for a plan that would deal with most, if not all, of the Social Security shortfall, if the problem and the possible remedies are clearly presented to them.

This survey, called a Citizen Cabinet survey, was unique. Respondents went through a “policymaking simulation” in which they were briefed on the Social Security program and told about the looming shortfall and its causes — the declining number of workers per retiree and the fact that Americans are living longer.

They were then presented a series of options for dealing with the expected shortfall, together with strongly stated arguments for and against each option and information about the effect of each one on the shortfall. The content was vetted, in advance, for accuracy and balance by Republican and Democratic congressional staffers as well as experts at the liberal National Academy for Social Insurance and the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The pro and con arguments were full-throated. Besides hearing about the negative consequences of possible benefit cuts, they heard such arguments as that increasing the retirement age would be hard on people who do manual labor and that raising taxes could hurt the economy. Indeed, in almost every case, majorities found both the pro and con arguments convincing.

But in the end, large majorities from both parties agreed on four steps that would resolve at least two-thirds of the projected shortfall:

1. Tax more income.
Raising the cap on income subject to the payroll from the current $118,000 to $215,000 was the most popular option. Fully 88 percent of respondents supported this nationally, including 84 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats.

2. Increase the Social Security tax.
But they were not only looking to raise taxes on the wealthy. Seventy-six percent also approved of raising the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.6 percent (72 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats). That step would affect even low-income workers more dramatically than those with higher incomes.

3. Reduce benefits to top earners. 
Reducing benefits for the top 25 percent of lifetime earners received 76 percent support, including 72 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats.

4. Increase the retirement age. 
Here, too, they favored what would be, in effect, a cut in benefits that would affect all future retirees: gradually raising the retirement age to 68 years old. This step elicited 79 percent approval (81 percent of Republicans, 78 percent of Democrats).

These four steps would eliminate 66 percent of the shortfall.

In addition, 59 percent went further, saying they would support eliminating the cap on taxable earnings entirely. Together with these other steps, the removal of the cap would completely resolve the shortfall. Even 54 percent of Republicans said they were willing to take this dramatic step, as did 64 percent of Democrats.

Hillary Clinton Offers A 5-Point Plan To Stop Jihadist Terrorism

(This photo of Hillary Clinton is from her campaign website.)

The Republican candidates for president are doing their best to frighten Americans about the efforts of jihadist terrorists. This is a problem that needs to be addressed (even though home-drown right-wing terrorism is a bigger problem in the United States). But the "solutions" offered by those Republicans make no sense.

Trump wants to register all muslims in this country, and ban muslims from entering the country. Cruz wants to carpet bomb areas held by ISIS in the Middle East (killing many innocents). And all of them want to send thousands more American troops to Iraq/Syria to fight an ever-increasing war in that area (even though it has already been shown in Afghanistan and Iraq that this policy doesn't work).

The truth is that bigoted policies and more war won't stop jihadist terrorism. It will probably just increase it by creating more terrorists.

Fortunately, there is a candidate that knows this -- and has offered a sensible plan to stop foreign-inspired terrorism. It is Hillary Clinton. Her plan is not an easy one, and won't fit nicely in a sound bite or on a bumper sticker, but the solution to jihadist terrorism is not easy. Her plan will work though -- if our nation is brave enough and smart enough to do it.

Here is her five-point plan:

1. Shut down ISIS recruitment in the United States, especially online.

Washington and Silicon Valley need to work together to defeat jihadists in cyberspace. That means identifying and removing the extremist content that terrorists use to recruit online.

2. Stop would-be jihadists from getting training overseas, and stop foreign terrorists from coming here.

We need to know the identity of jihadists and stop them before they cross our border. The United States and its allies need to vigilantly screen visa applicants, share information, and alert each other to potential threats.

3. Discover and disrupt plots before they are carried out.

Better intelligence is key to intercepting terror plots—but we also have to stop terrorists from carrying them out. That means restoring the assault weapons ban and closing the loopholes that let suspected terrorists buy guns.

4. Support law enforcement officers who risk their lives to prevent and respond to attacks.

We need to make sure our law enforcement officials have the training and resources they need to keep us safe from terrorism. And we can never turn our backs on the heroes who risk their health and their lives for our country.

5. Empower Muslim American communities on the front lines of the fight against radicalization.

Demonizing Muslims doesn't just go against everything we stand for as Americans—it also threatens our national security. We need to stand up to disgraceful anti-Muslim rhetoric and build trust so that our communities can work hand in hand with law enforcement to stop terrorism.