Deal says that the doesn't "shy away from hard questions." What conspiracy theorist doesn't think they are asking "hard questions"? Jim Garrison was asking hard questions when he tried Clay Shaw for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The 9/11 Truthers believe they are asking "hard questions." The one common theme is they all rely on conjecture and half-truths and no amount of evidence is enough for them.

He adds that the president can clear this up by telling him where he can direct his constituents, who Deal blames his crusade on, where they can go "to see authentic documentation, that he says is authentic, to satisfy their curiosity."

Obama's birth certificate has been online since June 2008. It has been independently examined and determined to be legitimate. Since there is a legitimate copy online, why hasn't Deal directed his "constituents" (and I doubt he is referring to the citizens of Georgia's Ninth Congressional District at this point) there to view it for themselves. Is Nathan Deal calling this copy a fake?

Here is the video:

Sen. David Shafer and I have discussed this issue off and on for the last three years, but as far as I know, no one was given a head's up that this was going to be introduced.

Martin assumes that I would support the 45% threshold for a candidate to win an election. I don't, but it's fair assumption to make. When legislation was introduced in 2007 to go back to the 45%, I wrote against it because I believe it is incumbent protection. It's really not too much to ask that our representatives win a majority. It gives a sense of legitimacy to their victory.

Martin says, "If we pass this and don't rescind the other, get ready for extra innings in just about every significant election." Not really won't be all that different from how elections are now. The only way that would be an issue is if more third parties were able to obtain a ballot line, which would still require signatures from 1% of registered voters, and only the Libertarian Party has been able to accomplish that.

I like the 50% plus one standard that we have now. I am however, an advocate of Instant Runoff Voting, which would avoid costly runoffs that are generally met by an uninterested public.

What is wrong with this ad?

If you're not familiar with Joseph Farah, he is founder of World Net Daily, an ultra-conservative website that promotes the kooky conspiracy theory surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate.

He spoke while the attendees of the convention dined, spending about 10 minutes, according to Dave Weigel, talking about Obama's birth certificate. He also spent some time talking about religious morality. What these two things have to do with the Tea Party movement, I don't know. Thankfully, Andrew Breitbart called him out on bringing up the nutty topic.

The focus of the Tea Party movement was supposed to be targeted. It was supposed to be about free markets, cutting taxes and spending. That's it. Not about personal crusades or promoting one party over the other.

Humorously, Farah closed his speech warning attendees, "Don't let some politician or demagogue hijack this movement."

I'd say it's a bit too late for that.

This should be a good game between two great passing games. Expect a lot of scoring. Neither team has an amazing defense, but each has qualities (the Colts have a great defensive line, but the Saints have a good secondary and solid linebackers).

The Colts are the favorite, but...Geaux Saints!

According to Georgia Code (§ 21-2-170), in order to get on the ballot a candidate must turn in petitions equaling 5 percent of the registered voters from the district he plans to run in. If a candidate plans to run statewide, he must get signatures from 1 percent of registered voters in the state. It's something most people aren't even aware of and when asked to sign many react by saying, "This is America, you shouldn't have to do this."

The 1 percent rule also applies to parties attempting to get their candidates name on the ballot, and if they do get a line on the ballot, they are still not a "party" as defined by Georgia law, they are a "political body" and they receive 1 percent of the registered vote in any statewide race to maintain that status. In order to receive an automatic ballot line for all candidate and party status, a candidate for governor or president must receive 20 percent of the popular vote in a general election.

The Libertarian Party is the only third party that has been able to obtain political body status in Georgia. The Constitution Party and Green Party have little to no presence in the state.

If you're running statewide, you'll need roughly 53,000 signatures (going by figures from 11/08). If you're running for Congress, and I'll use the Third Congressional District for this example, you'll need roughly 24,000 signatures. Keep in mind that each of these signatures must be validated by the Georgia Secretary of State's office, so you need a buffer of several thousand signatures, just in case they toss out signatures.

It's quite a tedious task, which is why you don't see anyone running for Congress as a third party candidate in Georgia. In fact, no third party or independent candidate has run for Congress in Georgia since 1964 (excluding special elections). It's also why only well-funded (Ross Perot) or well-known (Pat Buchanan) independent candidates have been able to qualify for president in our state.

State Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth) has proposed legislation, SB 359, would give political bodies, such as the Libertarian Party, a ballot line for statewide and down ticket races (local and legislative) provided they can maintain the 1 percent of registered voters requirement for statewide races.

The legislation would also allow for political bodies to endorse a major party candidate running for public office. This is known as electoral fusion. Several states use a form of it, the most well known being New York. For example, the Conservative Party in the state has endorsed Republican Party candidates often. Shafer's bill would allow basically the same thing.

It's a step in the right direction. I hope the state legislature and Secretary of State Brian Kemp get behind this bill as a fairer means of ballot access.

Of course, Isakson side-steps the question entirely.

State senators are moving to protect Georgians from being implanted with a microchip without their permission.

The Senate voted 47-2 on Thursday to approve a bill banning the practice without consent. Doing so would be a misdemeanor considered assault and battery.

Even with permission, implantation could only be performed by a doctor. Anyone who has a microchip implanted without their permission would be entitled to sue for damages.

Sen. Chip Pearson, who sponsored the bill, says it's a proactive measure aimed at anticipating technological advances that may infringe on people's rights. Sen. Vincent Fort, one of the two senators who opposed the bill, says it's a "solution in search of a problem" and a waste of time during the state's budget crisis.

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard legislators say that they think there are so many other pressing issues that a particular bill isn't worth taking up. So, what about this? Is this actually a pressing issue facing Georgians? Is the federal government, led by the Kenyan-born Barack Hussein Obama, forcing us to have microchips implanted now?

Gah, just please go home.