Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Steve Cee's Desperation

So Steve finally responds to my allegations that he lied by...trying to cover it up. Here's what he wrote on Christmas Eve:
"I have updated my previous post to include the origional image that was to be posted, but swapped to keep Loren Christopher Collins, Obot lawyer and George Soros little hack’s panties in a wad."

Here's what he added to his original post:
An Obot lawyer, who is too stupid and arrogant to realize that the image above, has been resized, by this blog hosting. Has decided to post a comparison image. The image below demonstrates that the FactCheck people used to verify the COLB were not only inexperienced, but were deceptive as well. They were not qualified to even photograph the document and took every effort to decieve anyone looking at it, just like the questionalbe lawyer. Regardless of the level of focus that the deranged lawyer is pawning, there are no defects from the embossing that are visible in other images. Since he can’t explain that away, he’s throwing a temper tantrum.

UPDATE 12/24/2009 As I have posted a new post today I am inserting the origional image that was to go here. Here is the one that I changed from to keep the Obot’s off-guard. The original was to have stated ‘Some degree of being in focus’ and an cropped section showing that even the date was visible.

First off, Steve's attempt to blame his blog host for the image resizing completely ignores the fact that Steve, himself, chose not to link to FactCheck's image or website. If WordPress resizes uploaded images (and I'm not sure that it does), Steve still knew that he was presenting his readers with a shrunken image and ONLY a shrunken image.

More importantly, Steve's being inconsistent with his stories. On December 21, he wrote that he himself resized the image: "In reality, I resized the image for posting only a reference image only..." Then three days later, he blames the blog host: "An Obot lawyer, who is too stupid and arrogant to realize that the image above, has been resized, by this blog hosting."

Second, Steve proposes that this new image is the "origional" that he intended to post, but apparently didn't in an effort to smoke me out, or somesuch nonsense. This, of course, ignores that the new words "Some degree of being" are in a different font than "In focus." And they're a different font size. And it means he randomly capitalized "In" for no reason. Yes, I'm sure that this was the original image, and that what we don't have here is Steve altering the image and making up a story to explain away his lie.

Take a step back, and consider the tale that Steve is spinning at this point. He's proposing that his plan was:

1) Before December 13, Steve draws up an illustration saying "Out of focus" and "In focus" in one font, and "Some degree of being" in another font.
2) Steve posts on December 13 the image without "Some degree of being," in the hopes that Loren will spot the lie and call Steve out on it.
3) Loren responds to Steve's post, pointing out where Steve lied in his labeling.
4) Steve makes a follow-up post a week later on December 21 that mocks Loren, but doesn't share this "origional" image and doesn't address the lying allegation.
5) After Loren points out Steve's lie again, then on December 24, eleven days after the original post, Steve posts the "origional" image and declares that it was always his Machiavellian plan to share a phony image in order to get Loren to call Steve a liar and thus link to Steve's page.

Of course, such a ridiculous plan should be no surprise coming from someone whose central thesis involves some vague but elaborate scheming where the Obama campaign swaps out two or three different documents during a FactCheck photo shoot, and the FactCheck folks don't notice.

No wait...the FactCheck agents being innocent dupes was Steve's old conspiracy theory. His new conspiracy theory is: "The image below demonstrates that the FactCheck people used to verify the COLB were not only inexperienced, but were deceptive as well. They were not qualified to even photograph the document and took every effort to decieve anyone looking at it." I admit, it makes it difficult to shoot down someone's conspiracy theory when they keep changing it.

Also, in an effort to fabricate a reason why he lied in the original image, Steve concocts an explanation that totally defeats his initial reason for posting it. Steve's point was that the impressed seal ought to be visible because part of the document was in focus; if the whole document is out-of-focus, only in varying degrees, then that's precisely what I said to start with, and which he called "lies."

Monday, December 21, 2009

Strike Three for Steve

In no time flat, Steve responded to my post from yesterday. Fortunately, he doesn't have much substantive to say, so this post will be considerably shorter than the last one. In fact, I'll do it bullet-point style.

- Steve begins "A lawyer claiming to know ’something’ about images is pawning himself as a legitimate authority on the Obama COLB forgery." That's absurd. I'm not claiming to be an authority on any forgery. That would require there to BE a forgery.

- In response to where I pointed out that Steve provided only a relatively tiny version of a FactCheck image that obscured the fact that his labels were blatantly untrue, Steve writes "I resized the image for posting only a reference image only and allowed the readers to judge for themselves by downloading the FactCheck image off FactCheck’s own web-site."

I suppose Steve "allowed the readers" to do that, to the extent that he didn't somehow prohibit them from doing so. But Steve did not provide a link to the FactCheck image in question. Nor did he provide a link to the FactCheck page where it appeared. Or the name or date of the article to narrow a search. The only way Steve's readers could download the FactCheck image would be if they first searched out and located the image for themselves, without any guidance whatsoever from Steve. And they had no reason to do that, since Steve gave no indication that the FactCheck image was any better or larger than the one he was sharing. Meanwhile, Steve had EVERY reason to hope that his readers wouldn't go to that trouble, because if they did, they would discover that he'd lied in his labeling.

- Similarly, notice that when I respond to a post of Steve's, I include a link to his post, so that my readers can read his comments for themselves. By contrast, notice that when Steve responds to me, he does not post a link to my post, or to this blog, or even mention this blog by name. This way he keeps his readers in the dark, and they have no clue what he's responding to apart from how Steve himself presents it.

- By not linking to my post, Steve successfully avoids having to ever address the fact that he flat-out lied when he called the image "In focus." He just glosses over that entirely. He also avoids having to address his use of inconsistent standards and the other problems I pointed out.

- Steve again asks "Why is ALL the lettering, including the date indicated, but no evidence of the SEAL." Because common sense should tell you that a lightly impressed stamp, on the reverse side of patterned paper, may not be visible in a blurry photo. In the one blurry photo out of nine FactCheck photos, the seal isn't visible. It's that simple. Running a photo through color filters doesn't unblur it.

- Naturally, once again, Steve says I "misrepresent the facts, and that he's caught me in "lies, fraud, and deciet." And once again, he totally fails to identify a single actual lie or fraudulent statement.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

The 'Duh' of Steve

I don't intend to make a habit of rebutting Birther 'proofs,' but when one is issued directly at me, how can I not?

Following my critique of Steve Christiansen's excuse for document analysis, Steve wrote a response post with a bunch of new graphics that he claims support his conspiracy theory. I'll jump right in with his first reference to me:
Now we look at an what an Obama supporter claims as false representation on the FactCheck image.

To quote his lies; “Now a real expert, or even just a person of reasonable common sense, would chalk this up to factors like how the photo isn’t in focus, making it difficult to see a pressure seal, or how it might be obscured somewhat by the shadow. Here, for instance, is how one portion of this JPEG looks, without any modification”

The is attempting to take a portion, at the furthest point of the image and state that, ‘that area represents the entire image’.

Steve then links to this COLB picture, which he observes has portions of the document that are in focus and others that are out of focus, and to this image (note: the image below is the exact size of Steve's image, copied from his site):

Steve's utilization of the first image demonstrates only one thing: his seeming ignorance of photography. Of course the seal is in focus and the far side of the document isn't; the camera focused on the seal. It wasn't a deep focus image, so at that distance, the far side is unfocused. This is unsurprising and irrelevant to the issue at hand. And if Steve is aware of the focal issues presented by this shot, it's not clear why he's sharing it at all.

As for the second image, Steve simply resorted to lying. See where he wrote "In focus" in blue on the image? Total hogwash. The reason I pointed out that the above image is the largest size that Steve shared is because the FULL size of the image (as posted by FactCheck and as linked to by myself) conclusively shows that Steve is full of it. The portion of the COLB that Steve calls "In focus" is anything but; only because he shrunk the photo down to approximately three percent of its original size, and conveniently failed to link to the original image size, he's made it impossible for readers to see those details.

Seriously, to illustrate just how much Steve shrunk the image to suit his purposes, and how ridiculously small his image is compared to FactCheck's original photo, here's a side-by-side comparison of how Steve's image compares to the size of the original FactCheck image it's derived from:

And the part that Steve considers and calls "In focus," but doesn't provide a full-size image of? It would be plainly obvious that it is NOT in focus, if Steve had linked to the actual size. But of course, to do that would have contradicted his own lie. So here it is, actual size:

If you think that image is in focus, please make an appointment to see your opthamologist. If you agree that it isn't, then you understand that Steve flat-out lied to his readers. Here, for comparison, is a crop of the same text from the other FactCheck photo that showed the whole document, again actual-size, and this time in focus:

Steve then goes on at length about how the inked date stamp on the back of the COLB doesn't appear to have affected the rattan lines on the document's front. He appears to consider this to be decisive evidence that the document is a forgery, but it's not clear why. It's an ink stamp; it shouldn't affect the texture of anything.

Then he says "The same anomolies and marking across the ‘Blank Hawaiian Template’, The DailyKos image, indicating that the same image was used to create them." Well, yes. Obviously. The 'Blank Hawaiian Template,' as Steve calls it, was made from Obama's COLB, so it shows the same marks. It's not like there was a blank COLB independently floating around the internet. Steve doesn't say where this 'Blank Template' comes from, but IIRC, it was the creation of Jay McKinnon, who admitted creating it from Obama's COLB.

He also repeats his previous claim (which he pontificated on at length in his original 'analysis') that the COLB as posted on Kos should be considered a forgery because you can't see any bleedthrough from the signature inkstamp. Of course, in another post he treated another COLB that similarly had no signature bleedthrough as unquestionably legitimate, which just serves to remind readers that Steve and other Birther 'analysts' pick and choose their evidentiary standards as they go along, without regard for consistency.

Well, that's about it. Inconsistent standards, imagined errors, and flat-out fibs. That's the kind of quality research you can expect from Steve.

Oh, and one final note. Steve repeatedly claims that I have engaged in lies or the misrepresentation of facts. However, he is remarkably vague as to what those specific falsehoods are. He is incapable of saying 'Loren said X, and that's false because the truth is Y,' because I haven't actually lied. So instead, he throws around the allegation as a broad charge, and doesn't back it up with any specifics.

By contrast, where I have above accused Steve of lying, I have been most specific. I identified the specific falsehood he posted ("In focus"), I demonstrated with superior evidence that it was indeed false, and I pointed out that Steve shrewdly manipulated image sizes and omitted relevant links so that his readers would not be able to tell that he was lying without searching out the original image that he didn't provide. And that's just one difference between me and Steve; he may be willing to throw around the 'liar' accusation just to avoid addressing arguments, but if I claim that a statement is a lie, I'm going to actually substantiate that claim.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

"Glee," on Birtherism

Glee had its fall finale last night. Songs were sung, rewards were reaped, and secrets were revealed. And one of those secrets was that cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester is a Birther.

OK no, not really. But she does talk like a Birther. When the exchange below took place, I was immediately struck by how perfectly it reflected Birther reasoning. It even involves the disputed authenticity of a document. The only significant difference is that the viewer knows that Sue is being disingenuous in her arguments; one can only guess at how disingenuous any given Birther is.

To set up the quote, first a little Glee backstory for the uninitiated. Cheerios coach Sue Sylvester (played by Jane Lynch) leaked the school's Glee Club's set list for a local competition to two rival schools. The other schools eventually admitted their complicity in this cheating, and the principal is confronting her as she continues to deny her involvement:
Principal Figgins: "Sue, the directors, both from the Jane Adams Academy and Haverbrook School for the Deaf, have informed me that you gave them the New Directions set list."

Sue: "You have no proof."

Principal Figgins: "The set lists were on Cheerios letterhead."

Sue: "I didn't do it."

Principal Figgins: "They say 'From the Desk of Sue Sylvester'."

Sue: "Circumstantial evidence."

Principal Figgins: "They're written in your handwriting!"

Sue: "Forgeries."

Principal Figgins: "Sue, there is an orgy of evidence stacked against you!"

Sue: "Well, you've clearly made up your mind not to be impartial in this case."

Birthers: the Sue Sylvesters of the political world. Great for laughs, but miserable company.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Scrutinizing Steve C.'s Conspiracy Theory


You demonstrate that a supposed "credentialed [forensic] examiner" is anything but, and what reaction do you get? 'Well, he may not actually be an expert, but that doesn't mean his material isn't correct!' And in a very broad sense, that's true.

Granted, it's true in the same sense that the local guy who's "proved" that George W. Bush detonated the World Trade Center *could* be correct, and all the real scientific experts are simply wrong, but it's theoretically possible.

So if only to preempt further complaints that I haven't actually addressed Steve's material, here's a cursory look at why it's conspiratorial hackwork.

(And to be clear upfront, it's a cursory look because I'm not wasting my time taking down every wrongheaded point made over the course of 21 pages.)

Let's just skip straight to the conclusion:
My original conclusion stands, that the Date on the COLB was printed on the top when the document was created, by printing out the ‘Fight the Smears’ COLB and then attempting to apply an embossed seal to the document in an attempt to produce a forged Birth Certification. However they produced two completely different documents one with a SEAL and the other without one. I believe they noticed that during the process that the document was missing a SEAL, applied one, and did not catch the image without one till it was too late and already posted.

They are forgeries, plain and simple.

Forgery #1 - The COLB posted on 'Fight the Smears' - No Stamp, No Seal, evidence of tampering and forgery. Sandra Ramsey Lines, Ron Polirak, and myself, among others.

Forgery #2 - FactCheck - Two different COLB's one with a SEAL, however NOT an Official State of Hawaii Department of Health SEAL

Forgery #3 - FactCheck - COLB without a SEAL, image of COLB being held up. High resolution and NO indicating of a SEAL.

Fom this closing breakdown, it's hard to tell how many different forgeries Steve is proposing the Obama campaign generated. "Forgery #2," for instance, is described as being "Two different COLB's." And right after he writes "they produced two completely different documents one with a SEAL and the other without one," explicitly suggesting two "completely different documents," he then immediately turns around and says "they noticed that during the process that the document was missing a SEAL, applied one," which suggests only one paper that was altered mid-photo-shoot. In other words, his theory is not even consistent from sentence to sentence.

It was also hard to tell from his writeup whether Steve was proposing that FactCheck was complicit in this alleged conspiracy of his, or whether he was proposing that the FactCheck staffers were snookered by the Obama campaign. Thankfully, he clarified his position at RSoL:
"And because of this, If I had been one of the two at FactCheck, I would have seen the discrepincies of the COLB and stated them at that time."

So Steve's thesis is clearly that the FactCheck staffers were fooled. Now in its article, FactCheck wrote:
We beg to differ. staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate...Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false...

[W]e can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates).

Thus, the FactCheck staffers were not foolishly ignorant of the verification marks on the COLB, as Steve would like to pretend they were. They knew to look for the seal. They knew to look for the signature. They said both were there. They took photos and posted them.

Steve's theory, quoted above, is that the Obama campaign gave the FactCheck staffers a COLB without no seal, and that FactCheck didn't notice its absence. Steve goes on to claim that after FactCheck took one or more photographs, the Obama campaign realized the document they'd given FactCheck didn't have a seal (something, according to Steve's theory, FactCheck *itself* hadn't realized yet). The Obama campaign then took the unsealed COLB away from the FactCheck staffers, applied a seal, and gave it back to the FactCheck staffers, who proceeded to take more photos without noticing that the document had been given a brand-new seal right in the middle of their photo shoot.

To reiterate highlight some of the absurdities of this theory:

- Steve proposes that the Obama campaign gave FactCheck photographers a COLB without a seal, during a photo shoot that was supposed to prove the COLB was *real*.
- Steve proposes that the Obama campaign gave FactCheck this unsealed COLB despite having a fake Hawaiian seal handy.
- Steve proposes that the FactCheck staffers managed to examine the COLB and start taking photographs without noticing that the seal was missing.
- Steve proposes that the Obama campaign interrupted the photograph-taking, took away the COLB from FactCheck, then either took it out of the room or applied a seal in the same room, and then gave it back to FactCheck, and the FactCheck staffers didn't find this suspicious or worthy of comment.

And how many photos does Steve allege managed to get past quality control without signs of a seal? Only one. Out of nine photos that FactCheck put online of the COLB, only one shows the area where the seal should be, but where it's not immediately visible to the naked eye.

Now a real expert, or even just a person of reasonable common sense, would chalk this up to factors like how the photo isn't in focus, making it difficult to see a pressure seal, or how it might be obscured somewhat by the shadow. Here, for instance, is how one portion of this JPEG looks, without any modification:

And he expects to see a lightly impressed seal? But no, in Steve's world, "It's blurry" isn't good enough; the seal isn't immediately visible because there was a conspiracy, multiple forgeries, and some remarkably foolish photographers.

It doesn't help Steve's case that he also uncritically repeats the old Polarik canard that the COLB posted at FightTheSmears does not have a seal. This claim always depended upon accepting that the Obama campaign would have sent a COLB image WITH a seal to the Daily Kos (which they did), and then turned around and posted a COLB image WITHOUT a seal on their own site. Why would they post an inferior image to their own site? I imagine that's a question that simply doesn't occur to someone who's willing to believe that they'd produce an inferior image to visiting photographers.

The only difference is that because the FightTheSmears image is considerably smaller than Kos's, the seal is considerably more difficult to see. Even at best only part of the circular seal can be pulled out, but it's there.

I'm not going to go through each of Steve's individual "proofs," but I do want to single out one claim of his. Steve alleges that one or more COLBs (he's somewhat vague on this point) lacks the signature stamp of Alvin Onaka. Here is the image of the back of the COLB, showing the signature stamp:

Nearly 2/3 of his 21-page paper is devoted to this signature stamp. Steve appears to allege that not only did the FactCheck staffers fail to notice that they took photos of a COLB with a seal AND a COLB without one, but that they also failed to notice that they took photos of COLBs with and without a signature stamp.

Again, where Steve sees conspiracies and multiple forgeries, the answer is in simple common sense. The date stamp and signature stamp were, naturally, made with two different stamps. The date stamp, you'll notice, is, on the back, darker and crisper than the signature stamp. The signature stamp is noticeably lighter, and almost failed to imprint at the top middle. And whereas the darker date stamp is just barely visible on the front of the COLB, the lighter signature isn't visible at all. Steve wrote "There is NO additional ink bleed through in the ENTIRE area," and this is true. The signature stamp simply didn't bleed through. There's no need for a more complicated, conspiratorial explanation.

So there you have it. Steve's analysis and theory may be considerably shorter than Polarik's, but it may be even more absurd and unscientific. That's quite a feat.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Steve Christensen, the Birther "Genealogist"

Birthers love their experts. Specifically, they love anonymous experts. People who produce pseudo-academic work supporting the Birther cause while claiming to possess expert credentials, but who don't produce such things as their real names or any evidence of the expert credentials they claim they have.

TechDude was the original forensic expert darling of the Birther crowd, claiming to have extensive forensic credentials, but keeping his identity secret. He was eventually exposed as a fraud. After that, Ron Polarik took to creating an expert resume for himself, and for a year was the Birthers' new favorite expert, all while keeping his true identity secret and refusing to produce proof of any forensic credentials. Then he was exposed as a fraud too.

In the last four months, after Polarik was exposed, the Birthers have found themselves yet another document expert: "Steve Cee," a supposed genealogist. And, for a perfect strikeout, the Birthers seem to have fallen for a third fake expert.

Phil at 'The Right Side of Life' recently wrote:
"[Facebook's employees] may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been -"

Phil's link goes to Parker "Beckwith" Shannon's TheObamaFile, where the four "credentialed examiners" who are "trained in the science of document forensics" that Phil mentions are: "Dr. Ron Polarik," Sandra Ramsey Lines, "a genealogist," and "MissTickly -- aka TerriK.

Note that three out of four of Phil and Parker's "credentialed examiners" don't even have real names. TechDude thankfully isn't listed, but Shannon still falsely claims that Polarik/Polland "specializes in computer graphics," which everyone but Shannon has known to be flatly untrue for months.

One of these "credentialed examiners" isn't even listed with his fake name. Of the "genealogist," Shannon writes:
A third investigator, a genealogist, says The Certificates of Live Birth (COLB) have been an issue since they were posted...

This genealogist concludes the COLBs are forgeries, plain and simple.

Forgery #1 - The COLB posted on 'Fight the Smears' - No Stamp, No Seal, evidence of tampering and forgery. Sandra Ramsey Lines, Ron Polirak, and myself, among others.

Forgery #2 - FactCheck - Two different COLB's one with a SEAL, however NOT an Official State of Hawaii Department of Health SEAL

Forgery #3 - FactCheck - COLB without a SEAL, image of COLB being held up. High resolution and NO indicating of a SEAL.

This post isn't about the "genealogist's" "research." But I do want to point out that his theory here is that Obama's people gave the FactCheck employees two different birth certificates during their visit, and that the FactCheck employees were either in on the scam or were too utterly incompetent to notice that they were given one document with a seal, which was then taken away, and then they were given a second document without a seal.

The "genealogist" behind this absurdity went by "Steve Cee". On July 28, 2009, The Steady Drip shared this material and wrote "This information was provided by Steve Cee, a genealogist, who has also authored this new analysis...Steve's contribution adds to Dr. Ron Polarik's extensive forensic examination." As it happened, the very next day "Dr. Ron Polarik" was revealed to possess precisely ZERO forensic credentials. "Steve Cee's" work is admittedly on par with that.

Where did The Steady Drip get the "genealogist" label? Two days earlier he'd written "Steve Cee decided to confirm if Klein's statement were factual and sent a series of emails to the State of Hawaii...Identifying himself as a genealogist, Steve specifically asked..." Steve is identified as a "genealogist" because when he'd called e-mailed and harassed some folks in Hawaii, that's what he called himself on the phone in the e-mail.

Enough backstory, let's get on with the real story. Who is the "genealogist" that Parker Shannon considers an expert and who RSoL Phil deems a "credentialed examiner" with forensic training?

He is Steve Christensen of Boise, Idaho. You may know him as "ch22240" or as "syc1959," the latter being the handle that he uses to post at RSoL itself, and the name he used to sign his "research". He runs Nobarack08 and he posts Birther YouTube videos. And at 50 years old, he's in the same age demographic that so many vocal Birthers seem to be.*

Is Steve a credentialed examiner, like Phil claimed and like Steve wants you to believe? No. Does he have forensic experience, like Phil claimed and like Steve wants you to believe? No more than Polarik does. He is yet another in a line of anonymous pseudo-experts that the Birthers keep putting their uncritical faith in.

Two months ago, I confronted Steve with this, and asked for his credentials. Here is how the conversation went down:
Me: "Everyone who cites your paper online offers only "genealogist" as your expertise. Now I rather enjoy genealogy, but what in your genealogy past gives you experience in digital image examination?"

Steve: "You’d be surprised at my past and experience."

Me: "So surprise me."

Steve: "You will be!"

Steve then promptly disappeared from FreeRepublic for two months, starting that very day. No credentials have been proffered in the eight weeks since. After Phil stated that Steve is a "credentialed expert" the other day, Steve made several dozen posts in the comments thread without even hinting that he was one of Phil's supposed forensic experts.

Finally, Steve was asked again for these alleged credentials. His response? "All in good time. When the time is right." He then promptly started talking about Perkins Coie and citizen grand juries and criminal conspiracies and Obama's poll numbers and Bill Richardson quotes and Obama's birth certificate from the 1970s and how complaints aren't being dismissed on the merits...all in the same post. When confronted with his months of deception, his response was not only to change the subject, but to attempt to change it to as many different subjects as possible.

When given one more chance to say whether he actually has any background in forensics, Steve wrote only: "I will not divulge this." Steve is apparently content with Phil describing him as a "credentialed examiner" with training in forensics, but adamantly refuses to provide so much as a scintilla of actual credentials to anyone to support this description.

When Steve has felt prompted to cite his credentials under other circumstances, unprompted by skeptics such as myself, what has he offered up? Only that he is a former service member (though he doesn't state which branch, or when or how long he served), and that he joined Oath Keepers earlier this year. That's quite a resume, isn't it?

As for his status as a "genealogist," there is no Steve Christiansen who is a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists, and he has actually described his own expertise as follows: "I've done some genealogy research myself." In other words, he's as much of a genealogist as I am.

So there you have it. Steve Christensen is a man who doesn't want you to know what credentials he may or may not possess, but who wants you and everyone else to believe that he really does have secret awesome credentials that totally validate his wild conspiracy theories. He's Polarik 2.0, and until he produces proof of expertise that support his claims of expertise, he is no more an "expert" than the next anonymous hack.


*In case you've never noticed, your most vocal and proactive Birthers were almost universally born before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Leo Donofrio is practically the baby of the group, and he's 44.

+ Edited for spelling.