By Al Colombo

A state too extensive in itself, or by virtue of its dependencies, ultimately falls into decay; its free government is transformed into a tyranny; it disregards the principles which it should preserve, and finally degenerates into despotism. The distinguishing characteristic of small republics is stability; the character of large republics is mutability. --Simon Bolivar (1783-1830)

Simon Bolivar was a Latin American revolutionary who struggled against Spanish authority. His outreach encompassed Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia. Born in 1783, he came from a wealthy family in Caracas, and he is often referred to as the "liberator." He was a patriot with a cause.

What Simon Bolivar said so many years ago holds true for today. What exactly did he say? Well, small Republics, like the United States was in its infancy, are relatively stable and able to maintain a degree of continuity of purpose and intent in government. However, large Republics, like the United States has become, are usually unstable, changing in purpose and intent, which is not in the best interest of its citizens.

Why is this bad? Because of the very same reason that you go to McDonalds to eat. No matter what McDonalds you go to, no matter where it is and in which state it resides, you know exactly what you're going to get. As our government has grown bigger over the last 40, 50, to 100 years, its now come down to the place where you cannot be entirely sure what you're going to get by way of government. This has especially become the case over the past 8 years.

In yesterday's commentary it was pointed out that if President Clinton was unable to prove Europe's intent to pay their fair share in the Kosovo peacekeeping mission that he would surely veto the bills pending in the Senate and House of Representatives. As it turned out, the Senate went belly up and the president did not have to lift a finger to preserve the continued presence of U.S. forces in that region. What a shame our Senators did not truly represent the best interest of the American people.

"The Senate voted 53-47 to drop a provision in a military construction bill that would have ended U.S. military participation in Kosovo on July 1, 2001, unless the president requested and Congress approved an extension," said Jim Abrams, Associated Press, 5/19/00, USA Today. (Editor's Note: Perhaps the writer should have referred to it as the U.N. occupation of Kosovo.)

In response to this cowardly action, on the part of the Senate, the Honorable Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., an aged patriot, said;

"The administration would much prefer Congress to keep quiet, roll over and play dead, while the administration continues to do whatever it wants to do in Kosovo."

It is the sincere opinion of this author that the Congress has every right to dictate policy where it comes to stationing troops overseas, especially where it involves funding. Not only that, the Congress should certainly get involved when our military is used in the occupation of other countries.

Why do we continue to stick our noses into other peoples' business? Although other administrations down through the years have run ramrod over Congressional authority, using any and all means available, this particular administration appears to have done it the most. The question is, how much longer should our fighting men and women be stationed in Bosnia? How must longer will they be stationed in Kosovo?

What's wrong with this picture?

In closing, allow me leave you with this one thought: would it have been right, and how would you and I (and Texans) have liked it, if a flood of United Nations peacekeeping units came charging down on Waco, Texas in 1993, when the federal government attacked a religious group with tanks and military firepower?

The Branch Davidians could possibly have used the help, since they were up against the authorities who, themselves, were using disproportional methods to extract these ordinary citizens from their stronghold. This included automatic weapons, illegal CS gas, and military tanks, not to mention the help of the elite DELTA unit.

Although the intent of this writer is not to advocate citizen violence, we must almost consider the absurd in order to see the folly inherent in peackeeping using military force, as well as what took place in Waco, Texas. Should the U.N. intervene in civil matters in a sovereign nation when they have not been asked to do so by the official government? Should our troops be part of such an op? Since when has using group force against anyone not incited conflict? When has bullying people fostered good will and true, lasting peace?