Mike Huckabee says the following:

"There will be an outcry from those on the right who will say that Obama's nomination, made two weeks into his presidency, is impossible to justify, but I think such an outcry will sound like right-wing whining," Huckabee wrote. "The better response is simply to allow those on the left to explain what he did in his first two weeks as President that merited such recognition."

It's not about just the first two weeks of President Obama's administration Mr. Huckabee, the Nobel Peace Prize he won is more than likely about the way he handled his campaign and the way he approached American citizens and their desire for change. 

It was about the way he approached other nations around the world and the way he asked Muslims to join us in the fight against terrorism. 

It was about the way he showed everyone they deserved to be listened to and respected for their ideas.

It's about the way he took on the establishment and proved that anybody could run and become a leader if they worked hard enough for it.

It was about the famous speech he made about race.  That speech is considered as famous as Martin L King's, "I have a Dream" speech.

It was about the way he got people to follow his dream. 

Just look at the pictures and listen to the stories of those he visited across this nation during his campaign.  He made history with all the types of folks of all ages.  He made history with the amount of people that came to see him at his rallies.  Thousands traveled for miles to see Barack Obama in person. 

Go back and at look the pictures and videos that were shown during Obama's campaign in the United States and in places like Germany during his world tour in July of 2008.  Look at the pictures in Germany when he spoke to over 200,000 people wanting to see and hear his opinion about the world's views and our connections.

No Mr. Huckabee, President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize wasn't just about his first two weeks in office.  It was about the way he drove the world to the idea of 'change' in 2008.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Confronted with big job losses and no sign the U.S. economy is ready to stand on its own (I DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT), Democrats are working on a growing list of relief efforts, leaving for later how to pay for them, or whether even to bother.

Proposals include extending and perhaps expanding a popular tax credit for first-time home buyers, and creating a new credit for companies that add jobs. Taken together, the proposals look a lot like another economic stimulus package, though congressional leaders don't want to call it that.

Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House say they have no appetite for another big spending package that adds to the federal budget deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion for the budget year that ended last week.

But with unemployment reaching nearly 10 percent, many lawmakers are feeling pressure to act. Some of the proposals come from the Republicans' playbook and focus on tax cuts, even though they, too, would swell the deficit...

Rep. Dave Camp, D-Mich., the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said: "The fact that they're putting forward all of these things is really an indication that the stimulus was a failure. It didn't work."

Bullwicky!  No Rep. Camp (He's a Republican not a D-Mich as the report says), the stimulus helped to stop us from going into a depression.

What this is a sign of is, the Bush administration and the Republican Party's lack of doing anything to stop the loss of over 2 million jobs during the years of 2007-2008 when the recession began, and their lack of doing anything to stop the economy from tanking in and heading toward the worse recession since the Great Depression.

Imagine where the economy would be today if the Bush administration had taken control of the issue back in 2007 or early 2008.

Instead the Obama administration and the Democratic Party inherited their mess. 

It was because Democrats passed (alone mind you) the stimulus package within one month so that it could begin saving jobs-- that we aren't in a depression.  Instead the economy is starting to improve with a possible growth of 3 percent this quarter instead of being in the negative.

Yes jobs are scarce, they are always the last to come back -- it's just much worse this time because of the previous administration's lack of acting on the growing recession and mess.

The cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is one reason our deficit has climbed.  Imagine where that deficit would be today if not for spending almost a trillion dollars in Iraq?  And now because the Bush administration and the Republican Party ignored the war in Afghanistan, Obama and Democrats must now repair the damage there and finish that war as well as the one in Iraq.

If money is needed to help create more jobs -- so be it.  They broke the economy, now Democrats must fix it.

WASHINGTON -- Congress is moving to require videotaping of interrogations of detainees held by the military, a step proponents say will prevent abuse and create a valuable intelligence record.

The provision, which the House passed on Thursday as part of the 2010 Defense Authorization Act conference report, would apply to interrogations of anyone held at a Defense Department facility. Because the Central Intelligence Agency's secret overseas prisons have been closed, it would most likely cover terrorism suspects whether they were questioned by a military or a C.I.A. officer.

The requirement would not apply to battlefield interrogations by troops engaged in combat.

This bill is suppose to "prevent abuse and create a valuable intelligence".  I'd like to know how? 

If the bill Senator Joe Lieberman has put forward is passed, all Congress has to do is turn around and exempt any future videos as well, siting the potential effect/harm on American national security or our troops-- "Americans can't see those videos, they might bring harm to our national security or our troops."

So why bother with this bill demanding that interrogations be video taped -- they will never see the light of day anyway with the likes of folks like Senator Lieberman in Congress.

That could be the rallying cry for Republicans in elections next year, and possibly in 2012, as they seek to regain power in Congress and the White House.

Despite signs of improvement in the economy, the unemployment rate keeps climbing -- up to a 26-year high of 9.8 percent in September -- potentially providing Republicans political ammunition and putting Democrats on the defensive...

The thing is, even if the stimulus worked, it wouldn't have necessarily created a lot of jobs in the business cycle," said Kevin Hassett, the director of economic studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "So I think the crowing on both sides in not the most defensible."

Hassett pointed out the irony of Democrats being on the defensive about the economy after sweeping to power in Congress in 2006 and capturing the White House in 2008 based mainly on blaming Republicans for the economic woes. Now Democrats have adopted economic policies that were not well designed and will extend the economic misery for the next few years, he said.

Just like in 1994 when they retook Congress, Republicans are describing the economy as the worst since President Herbert Hoover presided over the start of the Great Depression, Hassett noted. The only difference? "This time it's true," Hassett said.

As usual the Republicans have a sudden loss of memory with their so called facts.

Americans know that President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party INHERITED the worse economy since the Great Depression - that's a FACT!

I say to the Republicans, you want a debate about the economy and who took it down the tubes - Bring it on people, bring it on!

Remember back in 2000 when President Clinton left office and handed off to the Republican Party and President George W. Bush a $300 billion surplus?

Just eight years later in 2008 we get the news of how American jobs are hemorrhaging with a total loss of jobs being up to 2.6 million and that we had been in two recessions since President Bush took office.  The first recession in 2000 began that spring according to the economists and the latest one began in 2007.

January 9, 2009 - President Bush was still in charge of economy

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades.

A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September.

The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% last month from 6.7% in November - its highest rate since January 1993.

The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended...

"We're seeing a complete unraveling of the labor market and are on track for getting beyond 10% unemployment," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute.

The total number of unemployed Americans rose by 632,000 to 11.1 million.

It was President-elect Barack Obama that begun a push for a massive stimulus plan, aimed at creating or saving 3 million jobs over the next two years.

It was during the Bush administration, that unemployment jumped a full 2% over his 8 years in office.   It was just 5.1% in December of 2000.  By January of 2009 it was 7.2%.  As the previous story points out, it was predicted that unemployment was on track to go as high as 10% this year - even before President Elect Barack Obama took office.

As for what President Obama promised if his Stimulus package passed; he said it would CREATE or SAVE 3 million jobs.  Note the word 'OR' people?

So Republicans, go ahead and try to make the election 2010 about jobs and the economy.  I'm sure Democrats and President Obama will enjoy pointing out the true facts to the American people - as if they need to be reminded who it was that really put us in the tank.

The Senate on Tuesday passed a bill bringing the total U.S. tab for that war to about $300 billion...

The measure would bring to more than $1 trillion approved by Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the latest analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

An analysis by congressional researchers puts the tally for Afghanistan at about $300 billion and for Iraq at more than $700 billion since Sept. 11, 2001 -- totaling more than $1 trillion.

Does anybody besides me see how wacky these figures are? 

Didn't we go to war with Afghanistan because THEIR TALIBAN LEADERS harbored and aided the AL QAEDA while they attacked us on 9/11? 

Wasn't the Afghanistan war the one we went overseas to fight? 

Why on earth have we been willing to spend twice as much on a war in Iraq, a country that wasn't even a part of the attack made against us?  WHY?

Where were the cries of disgust and hate while the Bush/Cheney administration spent these billions of dollars in Iraq and basically ignored the real war? 

To this very day we continue to be in Iraq, hopefully soon, we'll leave for the most part; but like any war, we will continue to have bases nearby won't we?  Where is the rioting over that money being spent?  Why aren't the commentators on FOX complaining about that money?

When did we start our war in Afghanistan?  Wrong!  It wasn't October of 2001, it was March of 2009 when President Obama took control of the White House. 

That money we have spent in Afghanistan already, was just a down payment my friends.  The Bush administration failed America by taking their eye off the ball and invading another nation for personal political reasons.  Now we must spend billions more making up for what they and their supporters simply ignored and instead called a victory.

Today we will hear how much it will cost for the Senate's version of the health care reform.  It could be almost a trillion dollars.  What are those people that supported the war in Iraq saying about this possible outlay of money?  Too much debt -- we can't afford it.

What's more important?  Spending money on war that solved nothing in Iraq, that will most likely someday come back to haunt us (they'll probably team up with Iran to fight against the U.S.) -- or your own health care and the cost to maintain it?

You know, if the people that supported the war in Iraq had complained about the money and the way the war in Afghanistan was being handled back when  the Bush/Cheney administration had control, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN interested in their complaints today --- but they didn't even cry a whimper and in fact, just cheered them on.  Because of these facts, I highly recommend Americans simply ignore THEM, like THEY ignored Afghanistan and money being spent between 2001-2008.

The recent leak of a confidential assessment of the situation by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man Mr. Obama hired to turn around and win the war says,

"This new strategy must also be properly resourced and executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign that earns the support of the Afghan people and provides them with a secure environment,"

Nowhere in McChrystal's memo did the words "Al Qaeda" appear. The definition of what it means to defeat Al Qaeda had expanded - from disrupting, capturing, or killing its operatives to creating conditions that wouldn't allow their return.

Shouldn't the key words here be put together like this;  We should be creating conditions that prevent a return of the Al Qaeda?

What or who caused the conditions as such to allow the Al Qaeda's growth?

Remember back in 2001 after being attacked on 9/11 when form President George W Bush gave the Taliban the ultimatum to turn over the members of the Al Qaeda?  Here is part of the transcript from his announcement as we started bombing in Afghanistan:

"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

"These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

"We are joined in this operation by our staunch friend, Great Britain. Other close friends, including Canada, Australia, Germany and France, have pledged forces as the operation unfolds.

"More than 40 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and across Asia have granted air transit or landing rights. Many more have shared intelligence. We are supported by the collective will of the world.

"More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network. And return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in their country.

"None of these demands was met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.

It seems to me that now that Al Qaeda is all but eliminated from Afghanistan, unless we have proof that the Taliban are harboring some of them, we've more than made the Taliban "pay the price".

However, if the reason the Al Qaeda were able to gather so much strength in the beginning is because of the Taliban and their help - then the Taliban must also be eliminated or their chances of controlling the nation must be stopped -- or we risk having them allow the Al Qaeda back into their country to set up camps once again.

President Obama has defined the mission in Afghanistan as rooting out Al Qaeda and preventing a return of the Taliban to power.

He must stand by his words or lose any credibility he might have with this nation and the world.

How he accomplishes that goal is another story.  I'm more than willing to allow him time to do so.  The troops that he authorized to be sent over earlier this year have not all arrived yet.  Yet there are those pushing for even more troops.

These same people are the ones that allowed the Bush/Cheney administration a full 8 years without demanding more in Afghanistan -- in fact they claimed victory with in the first few months.  And now we're supposed to listen to their wishes this time around? 

I don't think so!

When the worker bees don't do their job, the queen dies and no honey is made.  When the basketball or football team refuses to work with one another, the game is lost.  When the troops sit back and refuse to fight, the general loses the war, when the employees won't do the work they are hired to do, the company goes down.

Commentators have been recently blaming President Barack Obama for not getting things done.  Saturday Night Live recently did a sketch about what Obama's not done.  What these people simply ignore is, the fact that it is the members of the Democratic Party that are not doing their jobs that is causing legislation not to get voted on or approved and to make matters even worse, the Republican Party has decided to do the switch-a-rue and be the Party of "No" instead of "Yes" as they had been during the previous 8 years of the Bush/Cheney administration.

You can have the best and brightest leadership; but if the crew refuses to do their part - nothing will get done just ask any CEO, General or boss.

If the Obama administration doesn't pass health care reform, the energy or climate control bill it won't be because of lack of trying, it will be because the Democratic Party could not stand 'as one' (as a team) on anything.

On the other hand, if the Obama administration gets stuck in Iraq, doesn't close Guantanamo, or they choose the wrong strategy for Afghanistan or they continue to refuse to go after those that allowed torture during the Bush administration, it will be because Barack Obama failed.  He's the "Decider" as George W Bush called it, in those situations.

The only thing, if none of the above is accomplished or stopped, the Obama administration can take credit for is, stopping another Great Depression from happening and upgrading our infrastructure such as our roads, bridges, medical systems, transportation and energy grids around the nation by passing the Recovery and Reinvestment bill with the team of the Democratic Party.  He accomplished all this while being handed the worse economy since the Great Depression, two wars, two rogue nations building nuclear weapons, a prison that needed to be shut down years ago, a pandemic flu and a world's dislike of America because of the way the Bush administration treated them while they invaded Iraq.

Those things alone should leave him in a better light historically than the previous administration.

If however, he and the Democratic Party finally start working together as a team by finally passing the health care reform package and getting an energy bill passed --on top of saving the nation from a great depression.  And he is able to get something accomplished with Iran and North Korea - he will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents.  At the same time, the Democratic Party will stay in power a few more years so they can improve upon those previous steps taken.

I also happen to think that if his administration takes on those that committed war crimes - they will be known as the true protectors of our Constitution and our troops.