True. Add to that the core of his argument is one of the lamest anti-birther straw man arguments and brings nothing new to the issue.
He's a blogpimp, an anti-birther and a disruptor type troll.
So what if he does? ... How would that negatively reflect on anyone who has questioned what was not provided despite years of inquiries? In other words, it's a legitimate and important question that has not been truthfully answered.
I don't see this as a result of some nefarious conspiracy ... but rather one of judges, politicians and other people with the credibility and power to investigate not having the courage to be the one to call into question the legitimacy of the first [fill in the blank] president into question that could result in the application of constitutional justice.