Obama should encourage Iranian rebellion, not help suppress it

Since the king of morning radio in Las Vegas, KXNT's Alan Stock, devoted a fun segment to reporting that I had switched political parties from Democrat to Republican ... and then dovetailed it into speculation about whether this is a precursor to a run against Harry Reid, I'm taking the time in Sunday's R-J to explain the switch.

There is no reason for the timing of the change, nor is it a precursor to run for office.

I simply was fed up with a Democratic Party that is ready, willing and able to spend America into socialism.

You can click on my columns from this page to read the whole thing. Enjoy.

In the meanwhile, Las Vegans woke up Saturday to the sparks of a freedom rebellion in Iran. I didn't have the space in Sunday's column to get into the reasons the Democratic Party is wrong on international issues. But the Iran mess is a perfect example.

President Barack Obama pretty much staked his foreign policy on the idea that we must talk to our enemies, No. 1 of which was Iran.

And so he did. He reached out to the religious totalitarian state of Iran, dropped to one knee to them on the issue of nuclear power development, and early on in the Iranian rebellion last week told the world that he had nothing to say to the freedom fighters in Iran because he didn't want to look like he was meddling.

It's makes me sick to my stomach.

Here we have a people repressed and chained for three generations and all the leader of the free world can say is "I don't want to meddle"?

What we need to be doing right now in Iran is everything possible to fan the flames of the rebellion. Make sure the people have free communication and let them know in no uncertain terms that we're all rooting for them.

Instead, Obama and Hillary Clinton are signaling support for the status quo. It's the wrong message and, if I may be so blunt, a betrayal of American history and vision.