If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

David Ralston is the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives

(Mar. 15, 2011) — The following is the conclusion of our interview with Rep. Mark Hatfield of Georgia regarding his proposed presidential eligibility bill, HB401.

REP. HATFIELD: As we were closing in on that time last week, we were looking at this deadline looming, and I continued to be told by the committee chair that he will not allow the bill to move.

I would like to say that when I last went to the clerk’s office and checked the bill last week, there had been 28 names that had been removed from the bill, but we still had 66 co-sponsors.  What that means is that over one-third of the Georgia House members were still co-sponsors on this bill, which is very significant.  You just don’t see that many signatures on most legislation.  Even on very popular legislation, you might see 15 or 20; to have 66 signatures on a bill is very significant.

I got together with some of my co-sponsors and we discussed the situation.  We were listening to some of the comments that had been made by various other representatives and also some of the things that were being said in the media as far as objections which representatives were saying they had to the bill.  It always came back to the fact that they felt that we were directing this at one particular candidate, which would be Obama, and they had concerns about the dual citizenship and multiple citizenship language.  There also were big concerns about the criminal penalty for a member of the Electoral College.

We put our heads together, and we were faced with a situation where essentially the leadership has locked down on this legislation and will not allow it to move.  What that means is that it’s going to die come this Wednesday if something doesn’t happen.  So I made an offer to the leadership and said, “Here we’ll agree, in order to try to move this bill, to move the effective date to July 1, 2013, and we’ll take out the language to which you object in the affidavit about the dual citizenship and multiple citizenship.  We’ll take out the provision about the Electoral College members.  Then will you allow this to pass as a a scaled-down version which still contains the provisions for the candidates to produce the documentation and to sign a bare-bones affidavit that they comply with Article II, Section 1 requirements.

Again, I want to stress that I’ve gotten phone calls and emails en masse from people on my own side of this issue criticizing me for having come up with this, but we’re trying to find a way to dislodge this bill from committee and have a chance for it to go forward, and so this proposal was made only in an effort to do that.  I don’t want to see the bill become effective after the 2012 elections; I think that any and all candidates need to be subject to those requirements, and it’s not fair to exempt anybody from it if you believe, as I do that, this enforcement of the Constitution is important.  The moving of the effective date is not what I want to see happen, but we’re not talking about a situation where I, as one vote in the House of Representatives, can come in, throw out a bill, and say “This is what we’re doing, whether you like it or not.”  I have leadership here that’s fighting and keeping the bill from moving, and our only option is to find some way, some fallback positions to try to get them to let it go and then if it can be passed out of committee and then potentially come to the floor, it could potentially be amended there to change the effective date back.  It could potentially pass out of the House and be amended in the Senate to change the effective date.  That’s been the thinking all along; it was not that anybody wanted to see it pass with an effective date for 2013, but if we don’t do anything to try to reach some sort of acceptable compromise that will get the leadership to move the bill forward, I know it’s dead.

So that’s what we were facing, and that’s the proposal that was made, and it was rejected.  The committee chairman told me that the best he was willing to do was “allow the issue to be studied over the summer,” or discussed in some form or fashion, but that’s certainly not acceptable to me, and I told him so.  I felt then and feel now that the bill needs to move forward.  So as far as I’m concerned, the leadership rejected any offer that we made to try to move the bill on terms that apparently had more teeth than what they wanted.

I will also say that that substitute bill that I had drawn up was never officially filed or offered in a committee; it was only drawn up as a proposed piece of substitute legislation.  Since it was never offered in committee, it’s simply that:  just a proposal.  So the bill remains officially in its original form.  That’s why it’s so frustrating for me that when I’m being criticized by people who should be supportive of what we’re trying to do, trying to explain this to them becomes somewhat difficult when they don’t take the initial opportunity to find out everything about the facts.  That’s why I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify this.

I understand that emotions on this issue are running high on all sides, and to be honest with you, it’s been a learning experience for me, because I don’t think I realized exactly how emotional the issue is.  But it is, and I respect that, but at the same time, we’re dealing with a process here that, as you know, is different from anything that you can imagine.  It’s a legislative process, and it’s a very difficult proposition to move a non-controversial bill through the legislature, much less a bill which has the controversy attached to it that this one does.  We’re trying to find a way to move the bill through, but at this point in time, we know that the leadership has not agreed to any sort of compromise language, and the bill remains stuck in subcommittee.  Our only hope, really, at this point in time, to get the bill to move, and for the bill not to die in committee for the year, is for the public to become engaged in this issue over the next two days and contact the leadership of the Georgia House of Representatives and demand that the bill be released from committee and allowed to come up for a vote on the floor.

Jan Jones is the President Pro-Tempore of the Georgia House of Representatives

MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you think this bill is necessary?

REP. HATFIELD: It’s necessary because we have the Article II, Section 1 requirements for the presidency, but there is no means of enforcement of those requirements that is currently in law.  Congress has not seen fit to put any sort of enforcement mechanism in place, and I believe, and I think that legal authorities would agree with me as well, that while the qualifications are set out in the Constitution, the actual job of running the election and actually physically qualifying these candidates and making sure that they meet the eligibility requirements is the job of the state.  In the absence of any action by Congress, I think the states have a duty to step up and provide a procedure by which we can qualify presidential and vice-presidential candidates and be assured that they meet the constitutional eligibility requirements.

MRS. RONDEAU: When we look back in history, there have been a couple of people who might not have qualified; for instance, Chester Arthur.

REP. HATFIELD: Exactly.  I’ve done a lot of research into that.  I think your site has some very good information on that.  I’ve done a lot of legal research.  I’m an attorney in my home town, and you have Chester Arthur who’s a prime example of someone who actually served as president and posthumously, there were many, many questions raised about his eligibility.  I think an example even better than Chester Arthur is Charles Evans Hughes.

MRS. RONDEAU: I did a long story on that.

REP. HATFIELD: Yes, I read that, and that was, in fact, where I learned about it.  I’ve done some subsequent research into that situation, and I think that Hughes’s situation is very much like that of Obama in that Hughes was born on American soil, which Obama claims to have been, but Hughes’s father was not at the time of his birth an American citizen.  He was still a British subject.  So that raises the issue of dual citizenship and multiple citizenship, and I think Breckinridge Long did us a great favor by writing the article that he did for the Chicago Law Journal and setting out all the issues which had arisen in regard to Hughes’s candidacy.  Breckinridge Long subsequently went on to be Secretary of State, U.S. ambassador to Italy; he was an attorney.  From what I’ve been able to tell, he was a scholarly sort of fellow.  Our country’s history is littered with instances of candidates for the presidency who have had these issues raised.  The travesty here is that over all these years, never have we put an end to these issues by coming up with a means of enforcement of Article II, Section 1.

That’s what we’re trying to do here:  put that enforcement mechanism in place.  A lot of people want to say, and I said on a recent radio show that this has been made into a big political thing about Obama.  There’s no way to deny, and I don’t deny, that the bill would affect Obama if he were running for re-election, just as it would affect any other candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency.  I don’t see anything wrong with that; I think that all candidates should be required to come forth and prove their eligibility.

It’s become a political football about the Obama presidency, but what I’m trying to point out that there are larger, underlying issues here than just the Obama presidency.  We have issues which stretch back into the 1800s in this country which I think are significant when you consider that we’re living in a world today where terrorism is a major concern here in our country.  We’re facing the possibility of the collapse of the dollar and economic catastrophe in our country.  We certainly hope that doesn’t come to pass, but we are in some significantly serious times in our nation’s history.  So it seems to me that at no time in my lifetime has there been a time when it has been more important to see that we have the right person at the head of this ship and that we have a person who is constitutionally eligible to hold office.  I believe that the Framers of the Constitution felt very strongly about having a person serving in the presidency who does not have conflicting allegiances.

MRS. RONDEAU: They of course wanted to avoid somebody coming over from Europe and saying, “I’m going to be king,” particularly anyone from Great Britain, because we fought the War of Independence to free ourselves of that.  We don’t even know if John McCain qualified as a “natural born Citizen.”

REP. HATFIELD: It’s interesting to note that Obama was part of a resolution which declared McCain to be eligible.  That’s a really strange thing when you look at it on its face:  that the Democrat party’s eventual candidate was making sure that the eventual Republican nominee was not going to have any questions raised about his eligibility.  It just seems very convenience that it turned out that way.  To me, it’s not a question of Democrat, Republican; black, white; male, female, or anything like that.  It’s just a question of obeying the requirements of our Constitution.

Georgia House of Representatives Larry O'Neal

As you know, there are so many times in our country when Congress will not take action on something that’s critical to the American people, and the states, by and large, feel that they need to pick up the ball and run with it in order to protect their citizens.  I think this is just another example of that sort of an eventuality coming to pass.

MRS. RONDEAU: The Tenth Amendment says that whatever powers are not delegated to Congress are left to the states, or to the people.


MRS. RONDEAU: All of us need to be sovereigns of our individual states, and we need to take responsibility and ownership of our government so that we aren’t wondering if the person sitting in the White House is eligible to be there or has foreign allegiances.

REP. HATFIELD: When I introduced my bill last year, I was asked why I had done that, and one of the things I said,  and I still subscribe to this notion, is that I don’t believe that any American citizen should ever have doubts about the qualifications of the person who occupies the highest office in the land.  That should just not be a question that’s even up for debate; it should be something that we know for a fact, that all the constitutional requirements have been followed.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think if people were to get on email, phones and send faxes to the right people in the House, would that make a difference?

REP. HATFIELD: I think it potentially could.  To be honest with you, I don’t know exactly what factors have come into play to cause this bill to be stopped.  As I said before, nobody will share with me what the concerns are.  Having said that, I do know that any time you’re dealing with elected political leaders, they have to be concerned when they start hearing from people who put them into office.  I think that we’re really in a situation where we need to try to influence their thinking on this, and the way to do that is to get people on the phone and email, and if necessary, send in faxes, but communicating with these elected officials in the House leadership and letting them know that this is a priority for Georgia, and it’s a priority for the United States, and we don’t need to let this bill die.

I also want to point out that there are some other bills out there that could potentially be vehicles for an amendment to place this language from my bill into another bill and allow it to survive that way, and we could do that even after Wednesday if we got some cooperation from the leadership of the House or the Senate in order to allow that to happen.  I think the best thing that we could do is pass this bill out, HB401, and let it go on into the Senate and let it have some free and public debate.

I’m encouraging anyone who is interested in this issue and believes, as I do, that it is an issue of critical national importance, to contact the leadership of the Georgia House.  You can go on the Georgia General Assembly website, click on the link for House of Representatives, and then on the next page, you click on the link for “Leadership.”  Click on that link, and it has the contact information for the members of the House leadership.  Those are the people we need to be talking to.  So I would urge everyone who really has concerns about the future of this legislation to please let their feelings be known.

MRS. RONDEAU: It would seem that the future of this legislation might determine the future of the country.

REP. HATFIELD: Exactly.  I’m concerned because I see that similar legislation has been introduced in other states, but it seems that nothing is happening.  In fact, I know a number of those bills in other states are already dead.  In Georgia, we have a Republican majority in the House and the Senate, and we have a Republican governor.  There’s absolutely no reason that we should not be passing this legislation this year.  If we don’t do something, then the bill is going to die.

That’s why, going back to the proposed amendment, we were looking at the options, and the option was either we make some sort of proposal to try to move this thing or it’s going to die.  And it’s not a question of what Mark Hatfield wants, because if we had what Mark Hatfield wants, I’d pass the bill in the original form.  I put it out there that way, and I certainly wouldn’t have offered it that way if that wasn’t how I wanted it.  So we’re going through a legislative process that involves 180 representatives, and many times, you have to compromise; you have to try to appease others in order to try to make a bill move forward.  But in this situation, we know that the leadership just isn’t going to do anything unless they hear from the people of Georgia and the people of the United States saying, “We want this bill passed.”


Update, March 15, 2011, 6:19 p.m.: Rep. Hatfield sent the following statement by email just now:  “We need to keep the pressure on, and I’m thinking that we need to be contacting senators as well now.”

Editor’s Note: An article written by a former U.S. military member supportive of HB 401 which raises a thought-provoking question in regard to all servicemen and women serving under Obama now can be read here.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Rules failed to add the new language and pass the bill on.
    The Georgia legislature has now passed crossover and is in the final ten days of session.
    Hatfield’s staff person would not disclose their strategy for the future of the bill, however they would not deny that they may try to fold it in to another bill that has crossed over. This can be either a House or Senate bill.
    More that likely it is the RNC that is blocking these bills. So if this bill can be brought to the floor the legislators at the state level can vote their constituents opinions and preserve their political integrity for the 2012 election.
    Interesting side light from the weasel’s den: 28 sponsors removed their name from the bill this week. Rationale’ was that they were not clear on the language of the bill and they had better things to do. They line their name out with a wide tip magic marker, on the original sign in sheet. There is no way to know who crossed their name out unless Hatfield got a copy of the original before the sliders started leaving.



    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  3. Many use the argument that these eligibility bills are aimed specifically at Obama. Well, yes and no. I would argue that the Obama situation laid bare a flaw in the system that should be corrected. There is no formal method to establish whether a candidate is eligible. When a procedural flaw is uncovered, especially when it involves the eligibility of the president, it makes sense to correct it. In fact, it becomes urgent to correct it.

    Many, if not most people, continue to focus on a birth certificate as an end-all in establishing the eligibility of the president, and in effect say that this proves that the candidate is a citizen and is therefore eligible. No, no, no! The candidate must demonstrate that he is a natural born citizen. The Constitution clearly distinguishes between “citizen”, which is the qualification for members of Congress, and “natural born citizen”, which is the unique qualification for the office of president.

    The putative definition of natural born citizen is supported by much historical research and dicta in Supreme Court decisions. A natural born citizen is a person who is born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of birth. This was the Founding Fathers way of assuring that the person who would be president would be raised in household free of foreign influences.

    For me the simplest argument for determining the definition of natural born citizen is by reference to the so-called “grandfather clause” in Article II. By including this clause, the Founding Fathers consciously made an exception for those who would otherwise be ineligible for the office of president. This clause made those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution eligible. These citizens were born subject to Britain and without the grandfather clause there would be no natural born citizens and no one available to be president.

    By coincidence, Barack Obama was born subject to Britain, and therefore is not eligible for the office of president. Obviously, it would not only be those born subject to Britain who would be ineligible, but those born subject to any foreign power.

    If I can judge by the public utterances of many legislators, none has taken the time to research the issue.

    Obama continues to joke about the issue, legislators continue to trivialize or otherwise avoid the issue, and courts repeatedly dismiss the issue. What is going on here?

    (In my state, Ariziona eligibility bill HB 2544, which includes a requirement that a candidate not have had dual citizenship, has been dropped from further consideration.)

  4. Rep. Hatfield says he “isn’t sure” Obama is eligible.

    Why does he say that? Since Rep. Hatfield knows Obama;s father was never a U.S. citizen, doesn’t Rep. Hatfield KNOW FOR CERTAIN that Obama is not eligible?

    Why is he couching his answers?

    I heard, by the way, that the bill has died. Can someone ask Rep. Hatfield if anyone in the state senate can amend a bill to include Rep. Hatfield’s legislation?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: His public email address is mhatfield@wayxcable.com.

  5. First I commend Rep Mark Hatfield for his courage… NO I don’t like it that the date has to be after the 2012 election… but if it gets to move the bill forward so be it… Now as far as pressure not allowing it to include obama this is a injustice done to any citizen in this country… Those who did sponsor, then took their name off the bill need to be replaced when their term is up… NO EXCEPTIONS as they prove they only care for themselves & getting re-elected. For those politicans who would NOT co-sponsor or support this Bill is you should hang your head in shame… I say this because you are showing your true colors & probably know something is wrong!! The only ones who have anything to fear is those that lie or are scared … no other reason to NOT vote for this Bill…

    I dare any politican to prove me wrong without bringing up race or color as an excuse!!

  6. Rep. Hatfield – “I don’t believe that any American citizen should ever have doubts about the qualifications of the person who occupies the highest office in the land”

    Rep. Hatfield – “nobody will share with me what the concerns are.”

    I can tell you what the concerns are. Your colleagues know that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. If he was eligible, there would be no problem at all with your legislation. It would be benign and no one would object to it. Your colleagues fear what will happen if Obama is exposed and we are finally forced to face up to the consequences of the constitutional crisis that he has created. Your colleagues are cowards. You, Rep. Hatfield, are a patriot and a loyal American with the guts and intelligence to do the right thing for your fellow citizens.

  7. Opinion from some folks in Georgia is that the pressure to kill the bill is coming from the GOP pols in D. C. Apparently they feel if a GOP controlled legislature in Georgia passes this bill it will tarnish the GOP image in Washington. Gotta love the GOP!

  8. I don’t think any state will pass a bill like (GA HB401)-It goes a lot deeper than we all realize. All of our elected officials are doing their best to stay away from the eligibility issue. WHY, WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF??????

    1. Seems like darn near everyone is afraid. Alinsky cannot be that effective. What is going on is a good question. It seems as if it must be threats, perhaps even threats against the families of some of these people who refuse to take on the most important political and Constitutional issue we have, one that must be resolved if America is going to once again be a nation of laws and not just who is the biggest bully. There are a few who will speak out….but way too few

      Obots know as well as we do that Barry in a usurper of the presidency….and a sleaze-bag.

      They just don’t care because he is their sleaze-bag.

  9. Leave the effective date at 2012 and leave the other provisions in too. If the bill dies, so be it. Hold every single one of those cowards accountable for their actions (or inaction) in the next election (especially the sponsors who reneged).

  10. Blairsville, GA 30512
    March 15, 2011

    Representatives Ralston, O’Neal, Sheldon, by FAX:

    Please see that HB401 advances to the General Assembly for debate prior to sine die.

    The issue of the sitting president’s birth records is just one more in a blatant series of false flags being flown by this administration. The bad odor coming from this rancor is “The Rules for Radicals” enumerated in detail. Certainly a steamer trunk load of perfectly falsified documents could have been produced in the first three days of this administration by any one of the dozens of “security” departments and agencies under its control. It wasn’t and by design, no doubt.

    There is nothing unconstitutional about Georgia acting on her 10th Amendment rights to create legislation for powers not enumerated for the federal government. There was, however, an oversight on the part of the Founders when they annotated the presidential qualifications requirements in the Constitution but failed to include oversight. They assumed We would always duly elect good men and true, unfortunately.

    So we didn’t and We don’t and now for the folks to enjoy peace and tranquility in future presidential elections, Georgia must step up and fill this void.

    The over whelming majority of independent voters, those who assured your election in 2010, wish for you to release HB401 for debate in the General Assembly, today. Please take note that these will be the same We the People who will assure your re-election in 2012, or not. Do not exercise the unconstitutional mandate of 2/3 caucus majority vote. Release the bill.

    For the Republic,

    M. J. Blanchard


    1. > There was, however, an oversight on the part of the Founders when they annotated the presidential qualifications requirements in the Constitution but failed to include oversight.

      There was no oversight. The Founders implemented “checks and balances” as a system; however that system necessarily fails if the checking instance (here: Congress) is corrupted itself.
      There is no way to design it otherwise; if there is a supreme checking instance, that could be corrupted as well. If A checks B, B checks C and C checks A, if A/B/C are all corrupted, you’re again at a deadlock point.
      So if POTUS, Congress and the Courts are corrupted, there is no way out.

      The only aspect where I agree with you is that there is, in principle, an “emergency plug”. The Founders could have added an Article that effectively legitimizes revolution if checks & balances fails (other countries’ constitutions have such provisions).
      However that is declaratory anyway since no corrupt regime would accept such a provision and if revolution is successful, who would indict the revolutionairies? ;-)

      1. follow the money, endfinancialfraud.org sound money now, provocateurnetwork american dream video. I wish people would start talking about its time senator and congressman pay into social security.

  11. “Here we’ll agree, in order to try to move this bill, to move the effective date to July 1, 2013, and we’ll take out the language to which you object in the affidavit about the dual citizenship and multiple citizenship.”

    What’s the point in moving the date and taking out the language? Of course this is directed at one candidate (who everyone knows is ineligible) and is why your submitting the bill to begin with. Our elected officials are spineless weasels.

    Here is an option for you Rep. Mark Hatfield of Georgia… Don’t pass the bill in its current form and get yourself and others a one-way ticket home at your next election. You all can run from this constitutional issue, but not hide from it forever.

  12. In my opinion the Republican leadership of the states are caving in to pressure from Republican leaders in Washington DC and the national RNC leadership which is still trying to keep a lid and cone of silence on the complicity of both political parties in the fraudulent 2008 presidential election cycle. They are protecting their anointed one John McCain who also had his natural born Citizenship issues. Who knows, maybe they secretly want to run McCain again as a last minute white knight candidate. Or maybe they want to run Jindall of Louisianna who is also not an NBC. Read this article I wrote about why the RNC is blocking the investigation of Obama as much or more so than the DNC is: The Fix was in for the 2008 Presidential Election. All three political candidates … DNC, RNC, and Socialist Party had issues with the Article II, Section 1, natural born Citizenship status and the coverup was put in place. The Perfect Storm for a Constitutional Crisis:


    So the short answer is the the Republican leadership does not want to go there because they know if they out Obama … he will out McCain and the RNC complicity in the 2008 cover up and fraudulent election.

    CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    1. maybe it is because congressman and senators are afraid WE THE PEOPLE will want them to pay into social security or no more pension for a few years of work,including the best health care for life for only a few years of work.Now they are all traitors backing a usuper and treason.

    2. reportedly Judge Schmidt (NYSSC Kings County) said that the McCain nbc issue 2008 GOP electoral college nomination was something that he Schmidt might have political jurisdictional interest in deciding (Strunk v Patterson index 29642-2008)

  13. The wimps in the Ga legislature are afraid of being skewered in the media. They have no guts. Call them relentlessly and tell them to support this or we’ll find someone who will. Now that November has come and gone the promises are behind them. Don’t you just love your elected phonies? A politician only lies when he’s speaking.

  14. Note that the Georgia GOP legislature operates on the unconstitutional 2/3 majority caucus rule, i.e. the legislator votes the way the caucus tells him or is punished. Last year the Senate Judy Chair lost his seat because he didn’t vote the caucus. If you are GOP and you don’t vote the caucus your political fortunes are lost. So HB37 concerning presidential qualifications was pre-filed last December by a Libertarian with no co-sponsors and no hope because the sponsor always votes against the caucus. I knew the House could not pass this bill so started working the Senate to file the bill from there. I lobbied the 25 Senators who I think are conservatives to file the bill but to my amazement there was no response. It may actually be that the slime from the swamp has reached all the way to Georgia.
    So Hatfield is a good guy in the House but filed HB401 too late to get the grassroots involved, I think. But here are the players and make sure when you contact them that they understand that this a very big issue with independents; the folks who assured their election in the last cycle and will either assure or prevent their election in 2012:
    Speaker Ralston 404-656-5020 FAX 404-656-5644
    Majority Leader O’Neal 404-656-5052 FAX 478-953-5022
    Maj. Caucus Leader Sheldon 404-656-5025 FAX 404-657-8278
    Jan Jones is speaker Pro Temp and probably not a player
    Note that Ralston is targeted by the grassroots to go down in the 2012 election.
    Tomorrow is sine die; crossover day whereby bills will die if they have not passed one house or the other. HB401 will not crossover. However it can be folded into any unrelated Senate bill that has passed the Senate. It is not likely that that will happen for reasons that Hatfield does not understnd and certainly for reasons beyond my grasp. Here are some go to Senators who could make it happen:
    Butterworth 404-651-738 FAX 404-651-5795
    Judson Hill 404656-0150 FAX 404-651-6767
    Loudermilk 404-656-0034 FAX 404-651-9703
    Shafer 404-656-0048 FAX 4047-651-6768
    Please note that none of this effort is wasted. It all goes towards raising the level of awareness that We the People are involved and have had enough of not being represented. We may very well loose this battle but I think we are winning the war.

  15. MRS. RONDEAU: What do you think caused them to do that?

    MR. HATFIELD: I don’t know. I know now that the leadership will not allow the bill to move; it goes beyond just the committee chairman; the leadership of the House will not allow the bill to move. But what is causing them to take that position, I do not know, “BECAUSE NO ONE SEEMS TO WANT TO DISCUSS THE REASONING BEHIND IT”

    We are now seeing first hand what it means to be oppressed by a military-style dictatorship. Just ask LTC Terrence Lakin, Theresa Cao, the families of Gabrielle Giffords and Judge John Roll, and others who have felt the full force of the “Chicago Way”. This terminal cancer has now fully infected the entire fed, state, and local governments. The “Us Constitution”, “rule of law”, “bill of rights” mean less than nothing to these pathetic criminals.
    Most politicians (not all) are spineless cowards on a good day, who are only concerned with following the political wind shifts for their own personal gain. They may pay lip service to “the will of the people” or doing the “right thing”, but in the end, when faced with the full power of the “Chicago machine” they will all fold like a cheap suit.
    It happened with Arizona’s eligibility bill and now we see it in Georgia. Look for more of these tactics on the other 10 or so states “eligibility bills”. Hopefully, at least one of the states will have the moral courage and fortitude to pass their “eligibility bill” in time to keep the usurper off the 2012 ballot.
    On January 8, 2011, the “Chicago Way” was implemented in Tucson, Arizona to send a very clear message to all those who would dare to oppose the usurper-in-chiefs policies, that those who do not play along, may end up gone for good.
    Ask this question, “Why has the main-sleaze-media, then and now, given almost -0- coverage to the murder of United States District Court for the District of Arizona Chief Judge John Roll?” Do a little digging and find out about the ruling Judge Roll made a few days before his assassination. These criminals play hardball, this is not the first time this tactic has been employed, at least two other instances come to mind.
    It’s hard to imagine a single elected official, on either side of the aisle, that has slept soundly since the new rules of the game were demonstrated in Tucson.
    I pray that God will give the courage, strength and honor that our elected officials need to stand tall and firm in the face of this horrible, evil regime.

    1. Jack, the issue is not just with the current resident in the WH and his administration. The basic issue is with the ruling aristocracy, or ruling class, or ruling elite – however one prefers to name them. The horrendous legal damage to American civil liberties enacted via The Patriot Act, the creation of the bureaucracy dedicated to keeping the “terror snowball” rolling and growing larger and larger and more invasive to the lives of ordinary citizens – DHS, the growing police state, the militarization of American life and life throughout the globe for that matter, the intensifying oppressive juggernaut of the consolidation of government agencies, global corporations, the military, the research & development departments of most major universities, the oil & gas industry heads and their carte blanche power throughout the agencies of the Federal government, and of course the economic control by the Federal Reserve and its central banking cronies is not a Democratic Party creation. Rather, and I speak as a former Republican – these are all outcomes of the neo-cons who began to show their true colors in the Reagan administration, and have been at work through all administrations since their aims are not “liberal versus conservative”, but “elite control versus citizen control”. Unless we common citizens awaken to this fact, we will continue to amuse the elite with our fight for political control in lesser halls of power between D’s and R’s.

      1. Rev. Tom Terry,

        We are in agreement on all your points, especially that the two-party system is nothing more than an illusion designed to let Americans feel as if they have some control over our direction, it’ a dog and pony show designed to hide the manipulations of the shadow gov.or as you say the “ruling elite”, and yes, I’m sure they have quite a laugh at our expense.
        It certainly didn’t begin with this dictatorship, it goes way back, however, they have certainly ramped it up quite a bit in the last two years, which is probably a very good thing as millions are now awake and paying close attention.
        When an obviously constitutionally unqualified, hopelessly inept, communist islamofacist muslim criminal, can be overtly inserted into the office of potus right in our faces and then perpetuate the fraud for over two years, denying standing to dozens of law suits and then blatantly deny the rule of law, the basic elements of defense, to a highly decorated Army flight surgeon LTC Lakin, and throw him in Ft,Leavenworth prison for simply asking the legitimate question, “Is the potus Constitutionally qualified to be CIC?”, it would seem that the shadow beast has grown just too big and too powerful to defeat, UNLESS that is also an illusion?
        Maybe the truth is that “We the Sovereigns” of each state actually have ALL the power and we just don’t know it or how to use it yet. After all, there are only 535 of them in the “district of criminals” versus 300+ million Sovereigns, whichever way it goes in the “elite control versus citizen control” battle, one thing for sure is, they will have to be shown
        “en masse” who holds the real power in America.

  16. Rep. Hatfield has betrayed himself and all of us when he said, “. . . there are larger, underlying issues here than just the Obama presidency.” Baloney. Obama IS the issue, and Hatfield is agreeing to evade the issue, just like the rest of the go-along-to-get-along mob.

  17. As a private citizen who, like many other citizens in other states, filed a lawsuit prior to the general election of 2008 seeking an injunction for the court to direct the Ga Secretary of State to examine and certify that each Presidential candidate on the Georgia ballot met the US Constitution’s requirement to be a natural born citizen, I was disappointed that my case, like every case filed in every court in the U.S. at the state and federal levels regarding this issue, was denied without hearing and deciding on the merits of the evidence. In the “Final Order” of my case (before my appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia which was dismissed), to quote the written decision by Judge Jerry Baxter of the Superior Court of Fulton County, as proposed and prepared by Stefan Ritter, Senior Assistant Attorney General: ” The Secretary of State of Georgia is not given any authority that is discretionary nor any that is mandatory to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President by a political party because she believes that the candidate might not be qualified. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-172 to 21-2-200. Georgia law, rather, imposes duties simply for examination of presidential electors. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172. The political parties’ candidates for President are determined by (typically and as was apparently the case for Mr. Obama) by convention of the political party. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191 TO 21-2-200.” This written order of the Fulton County Superior Court states quite clearly that the Georgia Secretary of State does not have the authority to vet presidential candidates on the Georgia ballot. Hence, a law is needed and it is incumbent upon the Georgia Legislature to enact law that assures to the citizens of Georgia that the vetting of presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the Georgia ballot occurs and that the election process is transparent in every regard.

  18. Georgia politics is locked in the good ol’ boy way of doing things from the 1950’s. Gov. Deal is a Demo retread now RINO. Most of the pols from south Georgia switched parties when Georiga went red but they still keep their progressive ways. The salvation is that there is a hard core minority of young bucks in the Senate, primarily, who are pushing constitutional issues. We are not in a position to make any big conservative moves as yet but the momentum is picking up.
    The key players on this bill are Ralston and O’Neil in the House. I will post there contact information “in a little bit”.

  19. “It’s just a question of obeying the requirements of our Constitution.” It could not be put more simply or accurately. Though there may be are a number of examples where our congress and court failed to act in their proper capacity, it cannot be seen as a precedent for inaction. I do not believe there has ever been a case so in our face, so well publicized,even with our fraudulent media, as the example of obama.

    Elected officials should be concerned about the opinions of those who elect them. Yet for the past two years they have shown little concern for the people. There is something very sinister and deep-rooted motivating those that are given authority to act by our Constitution without the need for states to legislate their own requirements,and yet they refuse.

    1. Well, actually, “[it is just] a question of” adhering to the fundamental principles upon which the United States of America was founded. Our government is not and should not be in the business of abducting children from their parents; declaring them to be ‘natural’ anythings–much less citizens of a Nation to which they have yet to establish a singular and firm commitment. NATURALLY, if the parents have already made their choices & formally declared their respective allegiances then their off spring are bound by their joint prerogative If the parents remain divided on the “issue”(forgive the pun)ie at the time of birth- then the child may elect; come the age of discretion, his or her ultimate direction. It’s called Parental Obedience.
      Whether done with deliberation or unwittingly – the dishonoring of this natural code is tantamount to an endorsement of slavery[-ie that the state rules capriciously over the will of the individual]

  20. Phone numbers for David Ralston: Capitol – 404-656-5020 District Office- 706-632-2211. David should be impeached immediately for incompetency. Just called his district office and his recording said: Office will be closed on Mon, Jan 17th and will reopen on Tues, Jan 18th??? If he does not even know what month it is, how can he make a logical decision on any vote???

  21. A Republican majority House, a Republican majority Senate, and a Republican Governor yet still effectively NADA?


  22. Wow. This two part series thankfully explains a lot about what is happening with regard to this bill, but it still doesn’t explain why republican leadership is so dead set against doing the right thing for the people of Georgia, and indirectly, for the rest of America.

    This same problem seems to be appearing in New Hampshire. What is going on in the state’s legislative leadership? Have they been threatened or bought off? Is the corruption at the state level comparable with the corruption at the federal level?

    Obama is being shown as a usurper, as was Chester Arthur. Why is this allowed to happen?