Watch our new TV ad here

We’ve waited 18 long years for the historic chance to defeat Senator Barbara Boxer. But that chance could vanish if we nominate the wrong candidate next Tuesday. I am the Republican Party’s best hope for the U.S. Senate, and I need your support once more to keep this message on the air all the way to Primary Day.

Having read so many of your notes of support, I can sense that something big is happening beneath the surface. Conservative Republicans are starting to tell us that they’re switching because I’m the only one who can beat Boxer. Independents are pledging to vote for the first time in a Republican primary. And many Democrats say they look forward to voting for me in November, though they can’t say the same of my fellow candidates.

In the closing days of this campaign, it’s becoming clearer that I am the only candidate who can unite principled, Constitutionalist Republicans, Independents, and frustrated Democrats in a coalition to oust Senator Barbara Boxer.

I can do it, but only if our message is seen by millions of primary voters between now and Election Day. The success of this campaign is literally in your hands.

Now, let’s go out and win!

Tom

P.S. California airtime is expensive, but we have the only clear and compelling “closing argument” that matters directly to voters, offering a clear path for replacing the nation’s most liberal Senator with its most fiscally responsible. A contribution of $1,000 buys a TV ad in San Diego. A contribution of $100 buys a cable TV spot in Bakersfield. Every voter we reach will bring us closer to victory on Tuesday.

Getting Senator Barbara Boxer out of the Senate should be the paramount objective for voters in the Republican primary, since we can’t take back the U.S. Senate unless Boxer goes. Carly Fiorina can’t defeat her; I can.

It’s true I have a more libertarian view on some social issues. But the contrast between myself and Senator Barbara Boxer is stark. Carly Fiorina’s dubious and self-serving claim that I differ little from Senator Boxer is easily refuted, as the Los Angeles Daily News, one of the eleven newspapers that have endorsed me in this race, noted on Friday. “Fiorina has called Campbell a liberal. That’s a view we don’t share. Campbell is absolutely a fiscal conservative.”

Consider the following:

• I support a constitutional limit on federal spending – Senator Boxer opposes it.
• I support the free market as the engine of economic growth – Senator Boxer thinks it’s the government.
• The National Taxpayers Union Foundation rated me the #1 most fiscally responsible member of Congress when I served — Boxer was at the bottom of the list at 412 out of 435.
• I support Arizona’s immigration law — Senator Boxer opposes it.
• I want to try terrorists in military courts and keep Guantanamo Bay prison open — Senator Boxer wants to close Guantanamo.
• I oppose cap and trade — Senator Boxer supports it.
• I oppose government bailouts – Senator Boxer supports them.
• I opposed the ineffective stimulus bill – Senator Boxer touted it.

Carly Fiorina talks a good game, but she has rarely voted in her adult life and recently told Salon magazine she was a Republican — “for now.” Assemblyman Chuck Devore is also my political opponent, but he is a fellow Constitutionalist — with a record. Both Chuck DeVore and I embrace our records, and in our careers we have fought many principled battles against the left. Carly Fiorina lacks any record and on the issue of immigration, she recently showed why she can’t be trusted.

I believe in the rule of law, including our country’s right to secure its borders. Immediately after the Arizona immigration law was passed, I publicly defended it. As a result, I was immediately attacked by the left. Howard Dean’s former California campaign manager put out a hit e-mail, urging, “Don’t let Tom Campbell lead California down the dark path to racism.”

The left frequently uses the word “racism” to intimidate those with whom they disagree. So it was especially surprising to hear Carly Fiorina also use the word “racism” to criticize Republicans who have spoken out about our immigration laws. In response to the question, “Do Republicans need to make any changes in their approach to the growing Hispanic community?” Carly Fiorina answered, “There has been a very unfortunate racist tone that has emerged in a lot of the discussion about immigration and that’s inexcusable.”

Leftists, and others who advocate ignoring America’s immigration laws, must have been overjoyed to read her words. Carly Fiorina helped their case immensely.

That’s the real Carly Fiorina. The one who rarely voted, the one who has rarely stood with us Republicans on tough issues. Carly Fiorina talks a good game, but when she’s tested in the heat of an issue, the Arizona law reveals her instincts — she lashes out at Republicans. It’s inexcusable for Carly Fiorina to characterize Republicans’ concerns about illegal immigration as “racist.”

For the last six months, Carly Fiorina has smeared my record—beginning with her infamous “demon sheep” attack video. She has told half truths: for instance, when I proposed eliminating California’s sales tax and business income tax, replacing them with a revenue-neutral net receipts tax, she only mentioned the net receipts tax. Or when I was state budget director, and submitted a balanced budget with no new taxes, she criticized the overall size of the budget, leaving out that I also proposed a constitutional cap on the growth of spending.

Lacking a record on any of these issues herself, she might be hard to pin down—except that her past is catching up with her. She was fired from Hewlett-Packard, and the employees whose jobs she shifted overseas have spoken out against her and will continue doing so.

Both Chuck DeVore and I carry copies of the U.S. Constitution in our pockets. Carly Fiorina actually tried to ban us from bringing them to the televised debate we held last month. She sneers at both of us as “career politicians.” But I am proud to carry a Constitution with me. I am both a career Constitutionalist, and a career Republican. Carly Fiorina is neither, and she will lose to Senator Boxer.

Nominate me, and I will take the fight to Senator Boxer – and win.

Read the full article here.

According to a just released LA Times/USC poll, I am defeating Barbara Boxer by 7 points – the first time a Republican has ever led her. The poll shows Carly Fiorina losing by 6 points, and Chuck DeVore losing by 10.

I can defeat Barbara Boxer, my opponents can’t – the case I make in this new video, which I urge you to watch and then pass along to your friends.

While 30-second TV ads have had an impact in this race, the most powerful way to sway voters is through a personal contact from a friend or colleague – you.

With sincere gratitude,
Tom

I recognize there is a diversity of views on the appropriate resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I have always believed that direct negotiations between the parties offer the only hope for peace.

However, the circumstances on the West Bank and in Gaza are much more complex than made out by those calling for BDS ; they minimize the acts of terror and murder that have been perpetrated against the innocent by Hamas, Hizballah, and other groups that are sworn enemies of the two-state solution.

Supporting a one-sided divestment lends credibility to such rejectionist groups and their teaching. It does nothing to lessen tensions so that thoughtful dialogue can recommence.

I would also like to add a word of most serious concern about the attempt to isolate Israeli academic institutions. I was Dean of the Haas School of Business, at UC Berkeley, when the British professors’ association initiated a boycott to prevent Israeli professors from visiting British univesities. In addition to condemning the action, I issued an invitation to any Israeli professors whose sabbaticals or study trips had been canceled as a result of the British professors’ association action to come to the Haas School instead. The invitation was broadly published, and particularly followed up by communications from professors on our Haas faculty who were dual nationals of the US and Israel. Attempting to isolate Israeli scholars is a peculiarly pernicious practice for any academic institution to pursue.

That is all that remains until Primary Day. From now until the polls close, I’ll be campaigning nonstop across California, meeting voters, and offering real solutions and specifics to the problems Washington, D.C. is causing for Californians.

But there’s a piece of unfinished business we need to complete before the final sprint to the finish of this campaign.

At midnight — just 12 hours from now — the books close on the final campaign finance reporting period. We are a bit over halfway to our goal of raising $100,000 online in the last 72 hours, and so we need a strong finish today.

Can you help propel us to a strong finish and victory on June 8th?

All along, we knew we were going to wage a different sort of campaign — one which you can be proud of.

Recent primaries show that voters are frustrated. They are rejecting candidates who seem to have more support in Washington, D.C. than in their home states. They have tired of those who speak in glib generalities, and they are embracing candidates outside the conventional mold of politics.

If you want a Senator who…

• Understands our economy, and how to get Californians back to work.
• Said “No” to new government spending more than any other member of Congress in two separate terms.
• Has written and passed a balanced budget without accounting gimmicks.
• Has the best mix of experience and accomplishment, having studied under Milton Friedman, served in the administration of Ronald Reagan and in Congress, and spent half his career as a teacher.
• Has a proven ability to win time and again in Democratic areas on a platform of free markets and individual liberty and offers our party the best chance in a generation to retire Barbara Boxer.

…then it is imperative that we act together in these next few hours to give the campaign the boost it needs to win in less than three weeks!

We have a lead in the polls, but we can take nothing for granted. Experience proves that the surest way to lose is to let up early, and that we will not do.

I would truly appreciate your support at this critical time, and look forward to seeing you out on the campaign trail in these next 20 days.

With gratitude,

Tom

In three weeks and a day, a candidate will emerge from the Republican primary to challenge Barbara Boxer. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows that I am the only candidate virtually tied with Boxer, trailing her by 1 point (42-41) while fellow primary candidates Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina trail Boxer by 6 and 7 points, respectively.

I also lead in the primary according to the latest public poll, SurveyUSA, Campbell 35 – Fiorina 24 – DeVore 15. While this is encouraging news, we must be acutely aware that at least 24 percent of the primary voting electorate is undecided and any candidate could emerge.

The press has made much out of Carly Fiorina “pouring” in another $1 million of her own money into the primary, meaning her campaign will likely outspend ours in the final weeks. This is only cause for minor alarm: California voters are not sold on a candidate trying to buy their vote.

I am wholly focused on communicating directly with voters through cost-effective radio appearances, townhall meetings (in-person and virtual), mail and email communications, and a final television media blitz. This direct-to-voter strategy works well when you offer substance over style, and I know with your help, we will succeed. That is evidenced in the polls.

But we shouldn’t take any chances. On Wednesday night at midnight, the books close on our final campaign finance report before the primary. We are aiming to raise $100,000 online between now and Wednesday night for our final get-out-the-vote push before the primary. I would be most grateful for your help in meeting our goal.

In 1992, Senator Boxer and I both ran for the U.S. Senate for the first time. Many political observers agreed that I would have beaten Barbara Boxer had I won the primary. Instead, we narrowly lost, and Barbara Boxer was elected that November. Ever since, we’ve had to endure eighteen years of Boxer as our nation slips further into debt.

We can’t let Barbara Boxer off the hook again. In these dire economic times, and always, we must take a stand for common-sense, intellectually honest solutions over style, and we must replace Senator Barbara Boxer.

With gratitude,

Tom

It was, therefore, amazing to hear Carly Fiorina and Chuck Devore in the recent League of Women Voters’ debate both announce that terrorist suspects who were American citizens should be given Miranda warnings before any questioning. Such a view is tremendously short-sighted and reflects a lack of knowledge of US Constitutional law.

The Miranda warnings are needed only if the prosecution intends to rely on the suspect’s information in a subsequent case in a civilian court. There is no Constitutional requirement to give the warnings, they are only needed if testimony is going to be used at trial.  In the case of the Times Square would-be bomber, there was plenty of other evidence linking him to the crime, apart from anything he said. And even if there weren’t, gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution should be secondary to the immediate needs of preventing an imminent terrorist attack.

Even if the criminal prosecution were the most important goal, trial in a military tribunal, which is appropriate for the Times Square bomber, does not follow the same rules as trial in a civilian court. The US Supreme Court has long made clear that American citizens can be held as enemy combatants, and tried in military tribunals, when captured on American soil.

See Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).  The Court has not yet ruled on whether information volunteered by a suspected enemy combatant can be used in military tribunals in the absence of Miranda warnings. In my view, the answer should be a resounding yes. Battlefield interrogations will provide the very best evidence to determine whether an individual is an enemy combatant, including American citizens who have chosen to become members of that category.  It is absurd to tell an enemy combatant captured on a battle field that he has the right to an attorney.

That should not be any different where the enemy combatant is being interrogated in America, having been captured in the act of an attack on America itself.

The United States is at war, against enemies who enlist our own citizens, and who plan and execute attacks on innocent civilians, as well as our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A United States Senator should be giving all the support possible to law enforcement’s efforts to find out about such attacks. A mistaken interpretation of the 1966 Miranda opinion is not a good way for a candidate for US Senate to show that kind of support.

Read the full post here.

If you were waiting to get involved in helping out, the time to start is now. My campaign is already running ads on television, and we need your help to keep them on the air.

This weekend, I received the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle in the primary, making their endorsement the third newspaper endorsement along with the endorsement of the San Jose Mercury News and Sacramento Bee.

The endorsements, grassroots events, tele-townhalls, fundraisers and media appearances have put me in a favorable position to win the primary, but everything comes down to the next five weeks.

Will you please help to keep our TV ads on the air and fund voter contact through Election Day? I can and will beat Barbara Boxer, but I need your help to win the primary first.

Please consider a contribution today.

Thank you so very much.

Tom

It’s entirely appropriate to regulate the risks undertaken by federally insured institutions, which, after the re-adoption of Glass-Steagall, would only be commercial banks carrying FDIC insurance. This proposal, however, desires to preserve the too-big-to-fail doctrine for investment banks, and then seeks to monitor their risky behavior. It’s far inferior to announcing that investment banks are NOT too big to fail, that they do NOT, in fact, have implicit backing from the taxpayer, and that if they fail, bankruptcy, not bail-out, is the proper remedy.

The Dodd bill proposes creating a federal agency that will set maximum limits for interest on mortgages, and credit card balances, and “other financial products. ” This allows the federal government to turn the financial sector into a regulated utility. The legislation would impose costly new regulations on community banks and credit unions, the leading lenders to small businesses, at a time when small businesses are struggling with financing.

The answer is not to have a federal agency decide how much mortgage interest rates are too much, or how much interest a bond can pay. That is a huge increase in federal control of the economy. The answer, rather, is to require complete transparency, so that investors are fully informed of the risks they are taking on with a mortgage, credit card, or investment;and I’d further require that lenders offer borrowers the most attractive terms to the borrower for which she or he qualifies. Beyond that, it’s the government replacing competition in the financial services sector.

This 2010 election proceeds at a grim time for our country and for our state.

Americans and Californians are enduring the most savage recession since World War II. This recession was incubated by bad government policy: bad policy on credit, bad policy on regulation, and especially here in California, by bad policy on government spending. Now a crisis brought on by misgovernment is being used to foist even more government – the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal.

As government muscles into areas that are not its job, it neglects what is its supreme job: national security.

The Rand Corporation reports more terrorist attempts on US soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001 itself. And since 2001, we have a new category of individuals: enemy combatants. This category was not in our vocabulary when I was in Congress.  Enemy combatants have allied themselves with Al Qaida, or other similar groups who have made war on the United States. For them, the appropriate treatment is to be tried under military tribunals, with incarceration in Guantanamo, or, where appropriate, the death penalty carried out by military authority. The precedent for this comes from World War II, where we did not try Nazi saboteurs in civilian courts, nor hold them for deportation, but where we used military tribunals, culminating, in some cases, with the death penalty. For today’s enemy combatants, incarceration is entirely appropriate, pending the time when the organization with which they freely chose to affiliate themselves, no longer poses a threat to the United States. If that is a long time, so be it – that’s the course they chose.

The Supreme Court has ruled that terrorist detainees are entitled to a hearing regarding whether they are, in fact, associated with such a terrorist group, a group that is essentially at war with America, but the Court has not ruled that any other rights we commonly apply to civilian trials are necessary.

Yet the Obama administration has proposed to organize a full federal court civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in lower Manhattan. The New York authorities estimated the cost of providing security for the trial at $200 million for just the first year – only slightly less than New York annually spends on parks and libraries combined.

The Obama administration’s approach is not only costly and risky – but legally and strategically ill conceived.

Terrorism is real, and a deathly threat to our nation’s people. Terrorists allied with organizations that have taken up arms against the United States are not the same as bank robbers or securities fraudsters. They are more analogizable to pirates in our nation’s legal categories; and, from the earliest days of our Republic, our navy ships have been empowered to seize pirate ships on the high seas and hang the pirates.

In the war on terror, there is no foreign sovereign or even civil war military commander to negotiate and certify when the end has come.   The analogy to war is, nevertheless, closer than the analogy to a garden variety civilian crime. It is on that basis that we should continue to incarcerate enemy combatants in Guantanamo rather than trying them in New York City, in civilian courts. But we can strongly bolster our case when, inevitably, it comes to the US Supreme Court, if we take an additional step.  We should ask Congress to utilize its power to define “Offences against the Law of Nations.”

The context in which that phrase appears is very telling, and, I think, apt to the current situation.  In Article I, section 8, the power is given to Congress, “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”  The way the US, and other civilized countries, dealt with pirates at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, was to capture a pirate vessel and summarily execute the pirates. There was no returning to port with the pirates for a civil trial. Indeed, the capturing ship did not even need to prove that the pirate in question had predated upon its own citizens. It would be sheer luck if it was a British man-of-war that found the pirate ship that had just plundered a British merchantman, for example. Rather, upon finding a pirate, with hard to hide evidence being the booty on board, any civilized country’s military ships could take the ship and hang the pirates.  American law reflected that practice.

I call on Congress explicitly to address the separate category in which we now find ourselves, under its authority from this clause of Article 1, section 8. The law of nations that the Congress would define (note that powerful word “define” is in the Constitutional text), would be to make it illegal to attack any part of the United States, or any United States citizens overseas, as part of a foreign organization devoted to such acts of aggression, whether or not with the support of another sovereign, when carried out for the purpose of influencing US public policy. Having defined this aspect of the law of nations, the Congress could then set out treatment for people in such a category—which would, I propose, include indefinite incarceration until the organization’s threat no longer existed, an ex parte review under a regular time schedule  of the basis for the government’s belief that the threat from the organization in question does continue to exist, before a judicial panel similar to the one established under the  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,  and/or a third kind of trial (neither civilian nor military) that would include what the US Supreme Court has already told us is minimally necessary for enemy combatants  (the cursory hearing), but explicitly not all the rights that would obtain in a criminal trial within the US.  If the individual is proved to have been taken in combat against the United States on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq, or having tried to blow up a plane headed to the United States, then the individual would be incarcerated until the threat from the organization with which he had affiliated himself had ceased.  If that takes a long time, that is the consequence of his own choice.  For the Fort Bragg killer, military justice would seem appropriate, including the death penalty; but, were that route not to be advisable for one reason or another, incarceration under this alternative system would remain an option.

Approaching the war on terror in this way relies on an explicit Constitutional clause giving authority to Congress. When, inevitably, it comes up for review, the US Supreme Court will not have to reach the question whether the post 9/11 Congressional resolutions constitute a declaration of war so as to invoke the World War II, US v. Quirin precedent. I strongly believe the Court will defer to a specific Congressional enactment directed to the circumstances we face today.

The harm from applying civilian court principles to the enemy combatants in the war on terror has already been seen. Out of fear of violating Constitutional principles developed in the civilian context, our country has already released many from Guantanamo; two of whom are now battle commanders in Afghanistan again fighting our troops. It is almost absurd that we allowed that result to occur.

I was the first Member of the House to compel that a vote take place under the War Powers Resolution. It is my hope to be the first Member of the Senate to implement the “Law of Nations” clause in our Constitution to tailor a legal response to the current threats our country faces, and a response that will stand up in Court.

Let me make a quick review of other parts of the world.

American troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Every American takes pride in our forces. We wish them success – and look forward soon to welcoming them home.
President Obama is winding down the war in Iraq –  a war separately authorized by Congress in 2002.  The president has approved his own “surge” in Afghanistan, and he was right to do it. As a member of the US Senate, I will vote to ensure that the president and our forces in Afghanistan have all the resources they require to accomplish their mission.

When force is needed, the Powell Doctrine best states the rules for its use. America must be united behind the use of force, the objective must be achievable, our use of force should be overwhelming, and it should be pursued to the finish. There is no war “on the cheap.” Such wars are unfair to our armed forces, and do not work out to be cheap as they pay in duration more than what they save in initial investment.

To win a vote in Congress, the President, practically speaking, must present a compelling national interest for the use of force. The clearest such national interest is to repel, prevent, or punish an attack on the United States. The resolution allowing the President to pursue those responsible for 9/11 represents the clearest such example.  Another case involves where an ally of the United States comes under attack. NATO was created precisely for that case. Today, while a military threat to a NATO member has dropped in likelihood, there are American allies for whom such threats still exist. America has a relationship with Israel of this nature. We provided Patriot Missiles, and military crews to operate them, when Israel was under attack from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.  America used military force to restore Kuwait to its independence.   Though we sought and obtained United Nations’ approval for that action, we never said our military action was conditioned upon obtaining that approval.  Nor should it. When an ally is attacked, it is in our direct interest to defend our ally and repel the attack. And as the world knows this, attacks will be less likely.

What is true for an ally is no less true for America itself. An attack on America will be met with punishing force. The Taliban government in Afghanistan did not attack the United States on September 11, 2001, but it provided the safe haven for those that did. America under President George W. Bush rightly and clearly showed what consequence flowed from the Taliban’s permitting Al Qaida to operate out of Afghanistan territory.

Uncertainty leads to heightened risk. Prior to invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein was told by our State Department’s representative that America had no interest in a border dispute with Kuwait. He greatly misunderstood that message, of course, but it was not free of ambiguity. When North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, it was following a speech by Dean Acheson that America’s security in the Pacific extended as far north as Japan. North Korea wrongly inferred from that a statement that it did not go further.   Today, the uncertainty that poses the greatest danger to world peace is Iran. What’s uncertain is not that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon. Pray as we may, wish as we may, I don’t believe it’s practical to assume any sanctions will deter Ahmedinajad from finishing his work on a nuclear warhead, and a missile capable of delivering it. The uncertainty, rather, is whether the US will stand with Israel if Israel takes the step with regard to Iran that it took with Syria in September of 2008, and Iraq in 1981, and strikes to destroy the nuclear capability before it becomes operational. In the Vice President’s recent trip to Israel, the Administration sent a message that the US was restraining Israel for defending itself in this way. I believe that was exactly the wrong message to send. Rather, if the message that Ahmedinajad, and others in Iran, perceive is that the US will support Israel if Israel takes this step, then whatever small chance there may be to avoid having to take this step will have been enhanced. Uncertainty of what America will do, if Israel has to act, should be removed, and removed now.

But the rest of the world has not vanished off the map. And, sadlly, we see this administration presiding over failure in many other regions of the world.

In South Asia: the Obama administration has put at risk the important new relationship the Bush administration built with India. Only last week, India inked a $7 billion arms deal with Russia, including the purchase of an aircraft carrier – this after the US made clear that the retired US carrier desired by India, the Kitty Hawk, would be mothballed, not sold. President Obama has made misstep after misstep with India, but the worst occurred during his November visit to China, when he suggested that China might have a role to play in the Kashmir dispute. If you sat down to deliberately invent the single most objectionable thing an American president could do or say from an Indian point of view, inviting China into Kashmir would be it.

In Europe: the Obama administration burned our Czech and Polish allies by abruptly canceling a land-based missile defense on 24-hours notice. Governments that had braved threats from Russia to cooperate with us were left stranded and humiliated. The man who committed massive electoral fraud to cheat Ukrainians out of their free vote in 2004 has now been restored to power in that important country.

In the Americas, the record has been especially bad. The Free Trade Agreements with Panama and  Colombia molder in a desk drawer somewhere, even as Venezuela supports narco-trafficking terrorists. When a Venezuelan-sponsored chief executive overthrew the Honduras constitution to extend his grip on power, the Obama administration sided with him, not the country’s unanimous Supreme Court, nor the country’s legislature, which agreed with the ouster 122-6.

In Mexico, we have a crisis of drug-related war and violence that spills across our border. There are courageous, honest police and armed forces fighting the drug lords in Mexico, but they are too often outnumbered. Here is an area of direct importance to all of us in California. We need to reduce the demand for illegal drugs in our country; Colombia wouldn’t grow, Mexico wouldn’t transport, illegal drugs but for our country’s demand. Our foreign aid assistance to training and equipping police is nowhere more needed than with our friends in Mexico. Taking the steps long necessary to make our border less porous will help immensely with drug traffic and potential terror infiltration as well. I think Mexico offers great potential for energy production and water desalination, facilities for both of which can be completed sooner than in our own state, and shipped north to where our demand is, while employing thousands of Mexican nationals in their own country.  And in getting serious about the border, we also need to recognize that legal immigration, by those who follow our country’s rules, is now, and has always been, a net benefit to our country. For nine years, I represented Silicon Valley in Congress. Silicon Valley would never have existed without the legal immigrants who came to our state from every country on earth, to study, to invent, to stay, and to make our country better.

. America has provided economic assistance to other countries, to help open them up to  free trade, to assist in the creation of democratic institutions, and to help alleviate suffering in the face of disasters, especially when acute, as recently shown in Haiti. I have been privileged to travel to more than twenty sub-Saharan countries as a Member of Congress, Subcommittee on Africa of the House International Relations Committee. I have formed a judgment that this kind of aid has to be kept to the achievement of simple goals. Disaster relief certainly qualifies. Providing wells and purification plants for clean water qualifies. Inoculating children from disease qualifies. A variant of the Powell Doctrine is needed here: our economic aid should be targeted to where it is likely to be successful, either alone, or in combination with the aid of other developed countries.

I came to appreciate the unique gift of America to the world, indeed, to the progress of human civilization. We Americans are the society with the greatest amount of personal liberty the world has ever seen. It is not a coincidence that we have also achieved the ability to create more economic opportunity than any other country ever has. As a Congressman, and especially as a Member of the International Relations Committee, I was presented with the reality of how the rest of the world sees us, not in the press, or in the posturing of a regional strong man,  but in the heartfelt, candid conversations of average persons around the world, and especially in the Third World.

I recall visiting Burma, meeting with Ang Sung Su Ky, who was under house arrest for the simple fact that she had chosen to run for President against the military junta. But I also remember the whispered conversations with individual Burmese, especially the older folks, who had learned English in school, and who talked with us when the government guides were not around. They remembered a time when there was freedom in their country. They remembered the US as liberators, and begged us to help liberate them again.

I remember the same in Syria, where a shop keeper constantly looked around, as she told us that things were not good, that one could not speak, that one had to leave to have any future, but that America alone could broker a peace that would undo the government’s hold over its people through the threat of war.

I remember meeting the rebel commander in the Congo, at a time when US official policy was to support then President Mobutu. We met Laurent Kabila in the bush near Goma, and I and Congressman Don Payne, just by being there, carried a message that there would be a welcome for him in American eyes when he marched into the capital of Congo, Kinshasa, which he did a year later.

I remember meeting the rebels in Yei, in southern Sudan, and talking on the phone with John Garang, then in armed resistance to the Bashir regime. That regime, still in power today, was repressing the people of the south, and also perpretrating horrors on its own citizens in Darfur. The promise of world condemnation was slow in coming, but at least he heard from two US Congressmen that there were Americans who stood with him, and against the horrors.

In Somalia, citizens lined along the roadway from the airport, waving small American flags, just because two US Congressman cared enough to visit their country, when so many others were afraid.

A village chief in Mali thanked me for the water pump that had been provided by US Aid to his people, to bring water from the Niger River to irrigate vegetables, providing just the difference between self sufficiency and hunger. He knew the United States as the country whose people had given his people such a simple thing. Nothing more complex, but nothing more important. And because of that tangible evidence of our country’s caring, and ability to care, he and his villagers, will never believe the lies spread about us by our detractors and sowers of hate.

In Rwanda, students I was teaching, after class, out of hearing of others, told me that they had lost their families in the genocide, and what would America do if it started up again?  What would WE do. Because America meant opposition to tyranny and savagery.

And in Haiti, I learned that the ne transcendent hope was that they might have there what their relatives tell them about in America: a country where one does not have to fear physical danger, or even death, for speaking up for one’s own beliefs, and where someone has the right to make a living without being preyed upon by the more powerful.

In every one of these instances, and in a hundred more, I saw America through the eyes of the hundreds of millions in the poorest parts of the world. I did not see anger, or resentment.  I did not hear argument, or rehearsed repetition of slogans. I saw how America is really viewed: as the hope, as the place where there is real freedom, as the place where a productive economy allows enough for those willing to work to provide for themselves, and to make things better for our children than we ourselves were able to enjoy.

I want to bring to mind the exceptional reality of what we are as Americans. We are what the rest of the world wants to be. Not because we are wealthy, but because we are free.

There are many other issues where the next senator from the state of California should take strong stand in international relations. I have touched on only a few tonight. But I do hope I have conveyed the fundamental principles that would govern my approach to this most important component of the job of a United States Senator, especially a Senator from California, which is so much a part of the world.  I would summarize all my points in one phrase: a commitment to freedom. We stand for freedom. We stand with our allies who grant freedom to their citizens. We stand for freedom of expression, and freedom of trade, and freedom of conscience. We stand for the right to live with freedom, freedom from fear of terrorist attack, either in our country, or upon our allies in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.  The rest of the world will once again know America for its unswerving stand for freedom, as it did when President Ronald Reagan, and President Harry Truman, from different parties, but both patriots, stood up to the greatest modern threat to freedom, the Soviet empire, and with determination, patience, and unambiguous declaration of principle, achieved for our generation what we must now achieve and pass along to the generation that follows us.