I am new to the world of blogging; nonetheless, I hope to bring a unique perspective to the burgeoning blogosphere.

For now, in honor of the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, I would just like to make one statement. This is a statement that has appeared on Michelle Malkin's blog today, and I believe it provides a good introduction to my point of view.

The above phrase in Arabic is "lan astaslem." It means "I will not surrender/I will not submit." You can guess who it's directed at.

I recently read a survey, where the main question posed was "Should the U.S. negotiate with Iran?" I was surprised to read the first three answers, all which said we should negotiate. The first of the answers made the statement, "don't send a warmonger (like Bush)," and "send someone who will listen." The second answer claimed we are being "fooled by our own government," and the third answer stated we should take Iran off of the Axis of Evil list.

Who are these people who have such a poor understanding of the Iranian problem, and who would rather blame our government first? These people should "listen" to the very words of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he states very clearly that his goal is Muslim domination of the entire world. These people should listen when he says he wants to wipe the state of Israel "off the map." These people should listen when he says that a world without America "is attainable, and surely can be achieved."

These people should review their history books, including information about the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the Munich Pact between the Western powers and Hitler in 1938. They need to stop the naive belief that our government is not to be trusted while Iran's government can and should be. And they need to listen to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says today. As Newt Gingrich has said, "when someone tells you he wants to kill you, believe him."

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Pope Benedict XVI's use of a quote by 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus in a recent speech may have been insensitive, but the response to it appears to confirm the accuracy of the statement. I find the burning of effigies, calls for death and beheading, and church bombings far more offensive than the Pope's statement.

Why is it that Muslims can disparage Christianity (and other religions) as a tenet of their faith, but no one is allowed to speak against islam? If Christians reacted similarly to every insult the Muslims profess, no Christian would ever be getting any work done -- they'd all be too busy dancing in the streets, waving weapons and calling for death every moment of every day.

These Muslims who are protesting can certainly dish it out, but they certainly can't take it.

Recently, I saw a bumper sticker for "Obama for President in 2008." This week, the news is reporting that the junior Senator from Illinois is speaking in Iowa. And the senior Senator for Illinois, Dick Durbin, continues to make references to a possible 2008 Presidential run for Barack Obama. Despite this, Obama has stated, "I can unequivocally say I will not be running..."

I hope he's speaking the truth. Unlike most of the liberal Americans who seem to think of Obama as some kind of saviour, I'm not sure what Obama has done that makes him the would-be Presidential candidate for so many people. I heard his speech at the Democratic National Convention, and, like many Americans, I watched his so-far relatively ordinary career in the U.S. Senate. I can't for the life of me figure out what all the fuss is about.

Obama's voting record is typical of a Senator who happens to be a Democrat. Most of the notable actions he has taken as Senator are Socialist in nature, the types of votes that make many ordinary people feel good about their government; touchy-feely issues like increasing Pell grant funds, or voting against cuts to the estate tax, so those greedy rich people who keep our economy moving and do most of the large-scale employing of workers can't pass their money down to their heirs. One notable vote was to help "undocumented" workers gain citizenship.

Then there is the issue of his oh-so-wonderful orations; flowery speeches that profess a love of brotherhood and humanity, where people work together and we are all just one big happy family. It was just a such a speech at the 2004 National Democratic Convention that thrust him into the national spotlight, and now that he is in the spotlight, the spigot of inspirational pep-talks and utopian promises has not abated. Why, you could almost mistake him for a regional manager of a retail corporation traveling about to rally his sales force, or maybe even a Little League coach getting his team of mediocre players ready for the big game.

The problem is that most people know, or should realize, that flowery speeches and socialist utopian ideals do not get the job done. Anyone can talk a good game, and if they are articulate as Obama happens to be, any issue can be framed as a struggle for the common man against the evil forces that are working against them. It certainly does not take any force of conviction to stand up and say "we should all work together." That's the easiest statement any politician can make.

I want a president who makes hard decisions, not easy ones. I want a president who will stand behind an unpopular policy because he knows it the right thing to do. I want a president whose actions speak louder than his words. So far, from Obama, all I've heard are words. His words are big and broad, and have attracted the country's interest. His actions are smaller; minor votes that reflect his party's ideology, fact-finding trips abroad, speeches against targets that no one man can solve, like AIDs and poverty.

I wouldn't buy a car from someone who speaks like Obama. If there was a rattle in the engine, or some other problem that would make me suspect, I believe he could assuage those fears with his ebbulient rhetoric, and I would walk away feeling that I may have been wrong to question the problem with the auto. Of course, days or weeks later when the deal is done and the car dies, I would have no one to blame but myself. No, I like to buy a car from someone who peaks plainly -- without a lot of subtle nuance that can cover up a flawed situation. In fact, I have little patience for nuance in auto-trading or politics. Nuance is a code word for "let me try to find a way to make me look good in the end."

Liberals, on the other hand, go for nuance in a big way. They like intricate word games that result in someone saying things like "I voted for it before I voted against it." And, if you don't buy in to their nuanced statements and dubious pronouncements, they sport a sheepish look that seems to say, "poor thing; maybe some day you'll be enlightened enough to undertand." But what they don't understand is how swayed they have been by empty words and idealist promises. Action holds little account for them, but if someone is articulate, then they gush forth in effusive praise.

So Obama, if you stand by your word and refrain from running for President in 2008, I will be one step closer to believing you are a man of conviction and stand by your word. But, if you do run, perhaps I'll be sporting a bumper sticker that says "Obama lied - and now he's running for President."