Umm, but Sen.. Reid, what exactly is the definition of "mandate"...isn't the definition a "final rule made by a dictator wannabe"? And isn't this just another "we just need to pass it to see what's in the bill" moment? Understand Senator, that will NEVER happen again. The reason to HAVE representatives is so that they will know what's in the bills or mandates before they vote them into law. If you think that the this is not important, retire Senator.

So Matthews thinks this is about the church's fearing they will lose "credibility"? Uh, no they fear they will lose their souls by being forced to go against everything they believe - the sanctity of human life at every stage. But I have to give him credit for at least seeing that there is a huge problem with Obama and his mandates.

Ummm, I don't believe ANYONE has actually acknowledged that serious mistakes were made. Well, except for Napolitano right there...

So is this how it is going to be for the next 10 months? More of the same - They are going to continue to call "racist" anyone who disagree with the President's policies.. Can't we just turn this around and call them on this? I realize that Obama can't really run oh his records, but seriously - that's all they've got?

He is more than welcome to pay more in taxes, however what would help more is if he would STOP SPENDING SO MUCH OF OUR TAX REVENUE ON VACATIONS AND GOLF GAMES!!!!!! He could start there and then we will see what should happen next. The liberal "do as say, not as I do" stuff is really getting annoying.

New Rule: Do as I Say AND As I Do

So will that church in which she is speaking now have to pay their fair share in taxes? I believe that churches are not allowed to engage in political rallies without losing their non-profit status.

Well they are just wrong. The exception as stated IN the Cosntitution and as per the the signing of our Constitution, were those who were not born when there WASN'T a United States of America. Wisely our founders recognized that by their own Constitution NONE of them would qualify because they were ALL born as British subjects. They thought this out and wrote the exception into the body of the Constitution. So if you have a birth certificate to a US state as per the rules of that state, you are a citizen of the United State of America. Period;.

Where in the Constitution does it say that both parents must be US citizens for the President to be eligible? Point it out. Nowhere. You are wrong. It says that to run for President one must be a natural born citizen which means someone who bears a US birth certificate.. If you have a US birth certificate and you are 35 years old and have live in the US for 14 years prior to running, you are eligible. McCain is eligable because he was born in a US Naval hospital on US Naval base so therefore, he was born on US soil.

Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in a US hospital and holds a US birth certificate to parents who were legal US immigrants and naturalized citizens.

One could make a case that George Romney, Mitt's father possibly was not a US citizen, but by all definitions, Mitt Romney is a US citizen.

By this same definition, Barack Obama is a natural US citizen. Can we get passed this?

FYI - I work across the street from the park. I just left my office about 1/2 hour ago and there were about 10 people there maybe.

Who is this child? Is she even old enough to have a credit card?