While the Skeptics Post does not allow comments we do value your opinion, we feel anyone can take a few seconds to write a comment and we want more than that from you. If you want to make your opinions known write a guest column for us and as long as it's well thought out and not too outrageous we'll print it. Truth be told...we'll probably print it even if it is sort of outrageous, as long as it isn't libelous. Send it to Submissions@skepticspost.com, your piece can be in response to something you read here or you can opine on something else altogether.
The Vatican, a Source of Trouble Through the Ages
An Artificial World for Artificial People
Is the Safety Net more of a Trap than a Net?
The Ugly Truth about Executive Compensation
Just Imagine
Wall Street Lunacy
Where the Hell are all the Heroes?
Two Wrongs Don't make a Right
Is President Obama a Traitor?
What the Hell Happened Here?
The Skeptic Hates Newt but...
The recent rise in the polls of Newt Gingrich has the Skeptic uneasy because the Skeptic hates this guy and thinking about him in the Oval Office is unsettling at best. He's arrogant, condescending, undisciplined, adulterous, thin-skinned, petty, a career politician and a lobbyist, all things the Skeptic does not like or admire in anyway whatsoever but he is smart. That is the one thing he has in his favor, he doesn't always speak in cliches, he thinks outside the box on issues and he's a good debater.
The Skeptic, as much as he admired Herman Cain for his rise to success against pretty steep odds, couldn't help but cringe when he though of him trying to debate Obama. Not that the Skeptic thinks Obama is anything terrific but poor Herman didn't have a clue when it came to the issues he would have to address during the debates from his gaffe on Syria to his thinking that China was still trying to develop nuclear weapons, it was troubling to say the least and if he was up against Obama on the big stage it would be inevitable that he would have screwed up somehow. And Romney? Well, the Skeptic admires Romney as a person, he seems to be a man of very high moral character and intelligent but his history of flip flopping would probably kill him in the general election, it might not keep him out of the presidency but on the other hand..it just might.
So the question is this, is Romney more likely to beat Obama than Newt? Maybe, if he was the Skeptic could live with him, Newt has a lot of baggage, there's no debating that but Obama is very weak right now and probably will be when the election rolls around so unless someone can make a strong case that Romney is much more electable than Newt the Skeptic would probably prefer that Newt gets the nomination. Why? Because he's more conservative than Romney and he does seem to have a few ideas that you wouldn't normally hear from a Republican, ideas that make some sense like his stance on illegal immigrants, it's very similar to an idea the Skeptic wrote about here. We need ideas like this because if we don't find common sense ideas that the independents can warm up to this country is going to remain divided and that means nothing but more of the same and no one wants that, unless you want America to fail. Newt isn't as conservative as the Skeptic would like, he'd probably still spend far too much on the military, he'll probably be perfectly willing to interfere in the affairs of other countries, and say what you will, these are not good conservative ideas. Also, it's doubtful that Newt would make any serious moves to get us away from this notion that the only way man can survive is if we continue this idiocy that a world government is good and inevitable. The best way to put an end to that idea is to get out of the UN and get the UN out of America, it's nothing but a huge bureaucracy that causes more trouble than it prevents. Why anyone would still think it's a good idea is beyond the Skeptic, just look at how well the EU is doing for a good example of why bigger is not better.
So, the Skeptic is uneasy about Newt and nothing he does will ever make him like the man but the Skeptic is nothing if not fair so let's give the man a chance, God knows things can't get much worse...unless we reelect Barack Obama.
The Skeptic, as much as he admired Herman Cain for his rise to success against pretty steep odds, couldn't help but cringe when he though of him trying to debate Obama. Not that the Skeptic thinks Obama is anything terrific but poor Herman didn't have a clue when it came to the issues he would have to address during the debates from his gaffe on Syria to his thinking that China was still trying to develop nuclear weapons, it was troubling to say the least and if he was up against Obama on the big stage it would be inevitable that he would have screwed up somehow. And Romney? Well, the Skeptic admires Romney as a person, he seems to be a man of very high moral character and intelligent but his history of flip flopping would probably kill him in the general election, it might not keep him out of the presidency but on the other hand..it just might.
So the question is this, is Romney more likely to beat Obama than Newt? Maybe, if he was the Skeptic could live with him, Newt has a lot of baggage, there's no debating that but Obama is very weak right now and probably will be when the election rolls around so unless someone can make a strong case that Romney is much more electable than Newt the Skeptic would probably prefer that Newt gets the nomination. Why? Because he's more conservative than Romney and he does seem to have a few ideas that you wouldn't normally hear from a Republican, ideas that make some sense like his stance on illegal immigrants, it's very similar to an idea the Skeptic wrote about here. We need ideas like this because if we don't find common sense ideas that the independents can warm up to this country is going to remain divided and that means nothing but more of the same and no one wants that, unless you want America to fail. Newt isn't as conservative as the Skeptic would like, he'd probably still spend far too much on the military, he'll probably be perfectly willing to interfere in the affairs of other countries, and say what you will, these are not good conservative ideas. Also, it's doubtful that Newt would make any serious moves to get us away from this notion that the only way man can survive is if we continue this idiocy that a world government is good and inevitable. The best way to put an end to that idea is to get out of the UN and get the UN out of America, it's nothing but a huge bureaucracy that causes more trouble than it prevents. Why anyone would still think it's a good idea is beyond the Skeptic, just look at how well the EU is doing for a good example of why bigger is not better.
So, the Skeptic is uneasy about Newt and nothing he does will ever make him like the man but the Skeptic is nothing if not fair so let's give the man a chance, God knows things can't get much worse...unless we reelect Barack Obama.
The truth of the matter is that governments do not create jobs, at least not real jobs
The Skeptic can't help chuckling every time he hears some elected official or someone who wants to be an elected official talk about creating jobs. They are either dumb as dirt or they are playing to their audience. The only thing, the absolute only thing government can do about jobs is to destroy them...no matter what you hear from any any so called intellectual or government bureaucrat they cannot create jobs. Not in the way they would have you believe anyway. What does the Skeptic mean by that? He means that yes, they can create a job working for government, a bureaucrat can hire a junior bureaucrat but the idea that hiring thousands of junior bureaucrats is going to help the economy is ludicrous. Think about it logically for just a moment, bureaucrats do not generate income, their pay comes directly from tax dollars, they are what the private sector calls overhead. Yes every business has overhead, it's inevitable but most businesses try and keep it to a minimum, businesses want as many people working for them that actually produce income as possible and as few as possible of support personnel. The federal government is a necessity, we need it to run the military, and yes, we need some bureaucrats, people to run some of our infrastructure, the air traffic controllers etc. What we don't need is a bloated government filled with regulation writing lawyers and little Ivy League geniuses who have never held a real job.
Jobs and businesses are kind of interesting things, real jobs and businesses sort of pop up out of nowhere, someone sees a need for something and a business is created to fill that void. It can be as simple as a business that mows lawns and trims shrubbery because the owners of those lawns are too busy to mow them themselves. Or, it can be much more complicated, a machine shop that makes incredibly precision parts, a contracting business that builds homes or large office buildings, it doesn't matter, they are very similar in one sense, they pop up much easier if there aren't too many regulations standing in the way.
Regulations, in and of themselves, aren't a bad thing, think air traffic and automobile safety and food quality etc. The Skeptic doesn't like them any better than most conservatives but the truth is certain regulations are needed, the problem with them is is they pop up even faster than businesses. The Skeptic doesn't know any better than anyone why that happens but he knows it does. Maybe it's the growth of the safety at all costs mentality we have today, you know, the mindset that thinks if we have enough regulations none of us will ever die. You know how it works, somebody gets shot and we pass another gun law, never mind that gun laws don't work and would seem to be unconstitutional since we have a right to own firearms by the Constitution but that's something for another day and another column. Take the time to find out how many laws are passed every year at all levels of government and you'll have an idea what the Skeptic means. It just seems that lawmakers, all lawmakers at every level, ought to seriously think about dramatically shortening the time they stay in session. When it gets to the point that California is passing laws that require motels to use fitted sheets you know things are out of hand. Really? Fitted sheets are a fit subject for new law, really? That's just one of countless, literally countless, laws that inhibit business growth. When a business has to keep track of all the laws that govern their particular business it adds to overhead and businesses hate overhead. It's difficult for larger businesses but unbearable for small business. Think about a small ten room motel that suddenly needs to replace all of its sheets, the Skeptic doesn't know the cost of a set of fitted sheets but lets assume they need to buy twenty new sheets and they cost twenty dollars each, that's four hundred dollars that won't be listed in the profit section of the balance sheet that year. And that's just one small regulation out of hundreds that govern the motel business. The Skeptic hopes lawmakers are passing this sort of idiocy without thinking because if they're thinking about the consequences of their actions and still do it their actions are unconscionable.
So what to do? Government probably isn't going to give up any of the power they have to regulate the economy, it's just the way things are, people, governments, religions, none of them will ever give up power willingly, it just doesn't happen. It doesn't matter which political party is in power, they are both guilty in the sense that they both covet power over just about everything else so the only long term solution is to support a third party solution and there's a couple problems with that solution as well. First of all it will take a lot of time to dislodge this bunch, people are reluctant to change even when they know supporting the current system is a mistake...change is hard for most people. Second, even if we could elect a third party into power there's the danger that it won't be long until they morph into something very similar to what we have now...power corrupts, it's an old saying but it's the truth.
So is the answer that there is no answer? Probably, the Skeptic can be awfully pessimistic at times, but while we sit sit and hope for an honorable group of men and women who'll take charge of the government and run it honestly and give up power before they become entrenched you could try this, drop out of the system as much as you possibly can without getting yourself tossed into prison. What does that mean? If you're working for a large institution or company it probably won't help much, your taxes are deducted from your check and your income is reported to the government. But if you're a craftsman, a carpenter, a mechanic, a computer programmer, anything that allows you to work for yourself do as much as you possibly can on a cash only basis. Starve this government for cash as much as you can and never feel guilty about it for a minute. They're just going to squander your money away on wasteful programs or paying the interest on the massive debt they've created trying to pander to people who are willing to sell their votes for free money from the government, which, by the way, is us. The Skeptic wants each and every one of you to think for yourselves about doing this and make up your own minds but remember, nothing is ever going to change if we keep doing the same thing over and over again. It's insanity, Einstein knew it, the Skeptic knows it and most of you know it too.
Jobs and businesses are kind of interesting things, real jobs and businesses sort of pop up out of nowhere, someone sees a need for something and a business is created to fill that void. It can be as simple as a business that mows lawns and trims shrubbery because the owners of those lawns are too busy to mow them themselves. Or, it can be much more complicated, a machine shop that makes incredibly precision parts, a contracting business that builds homes or large office buildings, it doesn't matter, they are very similar in one sense, they pop up much easier if there aren't too many regulations standing in the way.
Regulations, in and of themselves, aren't a bad thing, think air traffic and automobile safety and food quality etc. The Skeptic doesn't like them any better than most conservatives but the truth is certain regulations are needed, the problem with them is is they pop up even faster than businesses. The Skeptic doesn't know any better than anyone why that happens but he knows it does. Maybe it's the growth of the safety at all costs mentality we have today, you know, the mindset that thinks if we have enough regulations none of us will ever die. You know how it works, somebody gets shot and we pass another gun law, never mind that gun laws don't work and would seem to be unconstitutional since we have a right to own firearms by the Constitution but that's something for another day and another column. Take the time to find out how many laws are passed every year at all levels of government and you'll have an idea what the Skeptic means. It just seems that lawmakers, all lawmakers at every level, ought to seriously think about dramatically shortening the time they stay in session. When it gets to the point that California is passing laws that require motels to use fitted sheets you know things are out of hand. Really? Fitted sheets are a fit subject for new law, really? That's just one of countless, literally countless, laws that inhibit business growth. When a business has to keep track of all the laws that govern their particular business it adds to overhead and businesses hate overhead. It's difficult for larger businesses but unbearable for small business. Think about a small ten room motel that suddenly needs to replace all of its sheets, the Skeptic doesn't know the cost of a set of fitted sheets but lets assume they need to buy twenty new sheets and they cost twenty dollars each, that's four hundred dollars that won't be listed in the profit section of the balance sheet that year. And that's just one small regulation out of hundreds that govern the motel business. The Skeptic hopes lawmakers are passing this sort of idiocy without thinking because if they're thinking about the consequences of their actions and still do it their actions are unconscionable.
So what to do? Government probably isn't going to give up any of the power they have to regulate the economy, it's just the way things are, people, governments, religions, none of them will ever give up power willingly, it just doesn't happen. It doesn't matter which political party is in power, they are both guilty in the sense that they both covet power over just about everything else so the only long term solution is to support a third party solution and there's a couple problems with that solution as well. First of all it will take a lot of time to dislodge this bunch, people are reluctant to change even when they know supporting the current system is a mistake...change is hard for most people. Second, even if we could elect a third party into power there's the danger that it won't be long until they morph into something very similar to what we have now...power corrupts, it's an old saying but it's the truth.
So is the answer that there is no answer? Probably, the Skeptic can be awfully pessimistic at times, but while we sit sit and hope for an honorable group of men and women who'll take charge of the government and run it honestly and give up power before they become entrenched you could try this, drop out of the system as much as you possibly can without getting yourself tossed into prison. What does that mean? If you're working for a large institution or company it probably won't help much, your taxes are deducted from your check and your income is reported to the government. But if you're a craftsman, a carpenter, a mechanic, a computer programmer, anything that allows you to work for yourself do as much as you possibly can on a cash only basis. Starve this government for cash as much as you can and never feel guilty about it for a minute. They're just going to squander your money away on wasteful programs or paying the interest on the massive debt they've created trying to pander to people who are willing to sell their votes for free money from the government, which, by the way, is us. The Skeptic wants each and every one of you to think for yourselves about doing this and make up your own minds but remember, nothing is ever going to change if we keep doing the same thing over and over again. It's insanity, Einstein knew it, the Skeptic knows it and most of you know it too.
The Skeptic has a suggestion for Michael Moore
Michael Moore and his wealthy liberal friends really need to stop talking and start leading by example. Until he, and every other rich liberal, is willing to live the life they preach to others they need to just shut the hell up and go away. Until Michael and Bono and Al Gore and Warren Buffett and the host of other phonies calling for higher taxes are willing to show us they mean what they say by actually handing over the same portion of their income they want every rich person to pay to the government they're wasting their time. No one is taking them serious and no one should until they put their money where their mouths are.
They talk constantly about the need for the rich to pay their fair share but if they really mean that wouldn't they just do it on their own? Yes it's an old argument but it's a valid one, if it's really a fair share, and the Skeptic hasn't heard from anyone on the left what a fair share is yet, shouldn't they just pay that amount without having to have the government force the issue? The Skeptic just thinks that vague suggestions of a fair share are pointless, just name the amount in terms a a percentage and start paying it, as many people have pointed out there's nothing to prevent anyone from writing checks to the government. In Massachusetts the state tax form used to allow, not sure if it still does, you to check a box to pay a very slightly higher rate on state taxes. In a liberal state like Massachusetts you might think at least half the population would be happy to check the box and pay the extra quarter percent but virtually no one did, you got that? No one.
To lead by example is the truest form of leadership. The Skeptic thinks if every rich person who has ever called for higher taxes or agrees with the concept would simply pay what they deem fair and make their tax returns available, just like many politicians have done, so everyone can clearly see how much extra they've sent in maybe they could convince all the mean and nasty conservatives to follow suit. After all, the right thing to do is the right thing to do, if they would simply do this for a few years, yes years, just to prove they mean what they say it would go a long way toward helping the deficit and the Skeptic would be somewhat less skeptical, imagine that. Plus, it would finally give the rest of us an idea of the exact amount liberals think of as the correct amount, these are things we need to establish. Seriously, will liberals do the right thing only when they're compelled by force of law and threat of imprisonment? Is that the kind of moral leadership thy want to project? One last question for you Michael, are you afraid of doing the right thing or is the real problem that you damn well know the money you send in would be wasted? The answer, the Skeptic believes, is both.
They talk constantly about the need for the rich to pay their fair share but if they really mean that wouldn't they just do it on their own? Yes it's an old argument but it's a valid one, if it's really a fair share, and the Skeptic hasn't heard from anyone on the left what a fair share is yet, shouldn't they just pay that amount without having to have the government force the issue? The Skeptic just thinks that vague suggestions of a fair share are pointless, just name the amount in terms a a percentage and start paying it, as many people have pointed out there's nothing to prevent anyone from writing checks to the government. In Massachusetts the state tax form used to allow, not sure if it still does, you to check a box to pay a very slightly higher rate on state taxes. In a liberal state like Massachusetts you might think at least half the population would be happy to check the box and pay the extra quarter percent but virtually no one did, you got that? No one.
To lead by example is the truest form of leadership. The Skeptic thinks if every rich person who has ever called for higher taxes or agrees with the concept would simply pay what they deem fair and make their tax returns available, just like many politicians have done, so everyone can clearly see how much extra they've sent in maybe they could convince all the mean and nasty conservatives to follow suit. After all, the right thing to do is the right thing to do, if they would simply do this for a few years, yes years, just to prove they mean what they say it would go a long way toward helping the deficit and the Skeptic would be somewhat less skeptical, imagine that. Plus, it would finally give the rest of us an idea of the exact amount liberals think of as the correct amount, these are things we need to establish. Seriously, will liberals do the right thing only when they're compelled by force of law and threat of imprisonment? Is that the kind of moral leadership thy want to project? One last question for you Michael, are you afraid of doing the right thing or is the real problem that you damn well know the money you send in would be wasted? The answer, the Skeptic believes, is both.
Is the birth certificate real? Does it matter?
With another election fast approaching the Skeptic has been pondering the question of Obama's eligibility for the office he holds. Just to clear the air right up front the Skeptic comes down on the side that even if if there is a legitimate birth certificate proving beyond all doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii he is not a legitimate president. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to understand the main reason the Constitution requires someone holding the office of president to be a natural born citizen. And once the reason for the requirement is known the meaning of the phrase should be absolutely clear, the young United States wanted to be sure that whomever held the office of president was a loyal American, it's as simple as that. Now of course there's no way to know for sure what's in someone's mind but why make it easy for someone with bad intentions to become president? The president was and is a powerful position, if the occupant of the office wanted to do serious harm to the country it would be a relatively easy thing to accomplish so why not demand that the president at the very least be an American, a natural born American? Does that guarantee he won't have any malicious intent, of course not, but at the very least it guarantees he would understand the uniqueness of what it means to be an American and would hopefully make him understand the greatness of this country.
The Skeptic isn't a racist and he doesn't suffer from xenophobia but he does want the president to have the best interests of America in mind when he makes a decision, not the best interests of the people of the world. The Skeptic wishes no ill toward the people of the world, he loves everyone but he knows many people in the world don't return the love for a variety of reasons, none of which make much sense but nevertheless there are people who, not only don't love us, but hate us.
Now, this president's father was an oddball, no one who has read his story could deny that, that might not fill anyone with confidence that young Barack is not an oddball himself but it doesn't disqualify him from office. But the senior Barack was born a British citizen by virtue of the fact that Kenya was a colony of Great Britain and that should, and does, disqualify his son from the presidency. Whether he was born in America or not, his father was not a citizen so young Barack is not a natural born citizen. The Skeptic isn't going to go over all the tedious arguments of what the founders meant when they made that a qualification, you can do that yourself and he wishes you would, any serious look at the subject makes it clear what constitutes a natural born citizen. Just the fact that they use the term natural born citizen instead of citizen proves beyond all doubt that simply being a citizen is not enough to qualify for the office. The point is that they did make it a qualification and we should demand that qualification be followed or formally get rid of it instead of simply ignoring it.
Barack Obama is an egoist and a narcissist, that is also clear, even many of his supporters would agree to that statement, he has gone through life getting a pass and it has formed his character in such a way that he is amazed when everyone doesn't instantly recognize his genius and bow to his superior intellect and just allow him to rule by fiat. Now maybe he's a genius and maybe he's not, the Skeptic is skeptical, for a man as vain as Mr. Obama he is curiously unwilling to show us his college transcripts. Not really part of the argument but the Skeptic couldn't resist slipping it in to this column. Now the Skeptic would love it if there wasn't this sideshow surrounding the first black president, it somehow tarnishes all of us but there was really no way to avoid it and Mr. Obama knew that but he chose to run for the office anyway. He put his own interests ahead of the country, he knew his past better than all of us and if he is even half as smart as he thinks he is he should have known there would be controversy surrounding his presidency if he were to win. He wanted the office for his personal glory and that alone should tell us something of his character, he was more interested in advancing his personal view of America and the world than he was in the interests of the country. A man who loved America and cared about his race might have passed up the opportunity and let another less controversial figure become the first black president. As the Skeptic said earlier he wishes the first black president could have taken the office without this circus, the controversy has many blacks upset that Mr. Obama seems to be getting treated rather shabbily by the right. They sense it's because of his race and that's probably understandable, the Skeptic doesn't think it's true for the most part but it is the perception and all of us could do without it. Mr. Obama knew these problems would surface because he well knew that his agenda wasn't an American agenda, Mr. Obama's agenda is a socialist agenda. But he ran anyway... and whether it was a combination of ego and a desire to transform America, or a desire to pay America back for perceived harm done by America to blacks and non European countries it wasn't a valid reason to chase the office.
In the end Obama has done nothing but damage the country. He has made racism worse because blacks feel he's been treated poorly, it's understandable they'd feel that way but that doesn't change the fact that he has harmed racial relations. The temptation is to say he's in over his head but to be honest the Skeptic isn't quite sure that he isn't trying to harm the country which is exactly the reason the president should be a natural born citizen. Just imagine how different things would be if the first black president was unquestionably eligible to hold the office and if his policies were somewhat closer to mainstream. The Skeptic hopes it won't be long until that happens but he thinks Mr. Obama might have put that day on hold for a long time to come.
So does the birth certificate matter? Not really, all it would prove was the place of his birth, it won't change who his father was and it won't change his agenda. It's an illegitimate presidency but it's also a wasted opportunity and Barack Obama alone is responsible for that.
The Skeptic isn't a racist and he doesn't suffer from xenophobia but he does want the president to have the best interests of America in mind when he makes a decision, not the best interests of the people of the world. The Skeptic wishes no ill toward the people of the world, he loves everyone but he knows many people in the world don't return the love for a variety of reasons, none of which make much sense but nevertheless there are people who, not only don't love us, but hate us.
Now, this president's father was an oddball, no one who has read his story could deny that, that might not fill anyone with confidence that young Barack is not an oddball himself but it doesn't disqualify him from office. But the senior Barack was born a British citizen by virtue of the fact that Kenya was a colony of Great Britain and that should, and does, disqualify his son from the presidency. Whether he was born in America or not, his father was not a citizen so young Barack is not a natural born citizen. The Skeptic isn't going to go over all the tedious arguments of what the founders meant when they made that a qualification, you can do that yourself and he wishes you would, any serious look at the subject makes it clear what constitutes a natural born citizen. Just the fact that they use the term natural born citizen instead of citizen proves beyond all doubt that simply being a citizen is not enough to qualify for the office. The point is that they did make it a qualification and we should demand that qualification be followed or formally get rid of it instead of simply ignoring it.
Barack Obama is an egoist and a narcissist, that is also clear, even many of his supporters would agree to that statement, he has gone through life getting a pass and it has formed his character in such a way that he is amazed when everyone doesn't instantly recognize his genius and bow to his superior intellect and just allow him to rule by fiat. Now maybe he's a genius and maybe he's not, the Skeptic is skeptical, for a man as vain as Mr. Obama he is curiously unwilling to show us his college transcripts. Not really part of the argument but the Skeptic couldn't resist slipping it in to this column. Now the Skeptic would love it if there wasn't this sideshow surrounding the first black president, it somehow tarnishes all of us but there was really no way to avoid it and Mr. Obama knew that but he chose to run for the office anyway. He put his own interests ahead of the country, he knew his past better than all of us and if he is even half as smart as he thinks he is he should have known there would be controversy surrounding his presidency if he were to win. He wanted the office for his personal glory and that alone should tell us something of his character, he was more interested in advancing his personal view of America and the world than he was in the interests of the country. A man who loved America and cared about his race might have passed up the opportunity and let another less controversial figure become the first black president. As the Skeptic said earlier he wishes the first black president could have taken the office without this circus, the controversy has many blacks upset that Mr. Obama seems to be getting treated rather shabbily by the right. They sense it's because of his race and that's probably understandable, the Skeptic doesn't think it's true for the most part but it is the perception and all of us could do without it. Mr. Obama knew these problems would surface because he well knew that his agenda wasn't an American agenda, Mr. Obama's agenda is a socialist agenda. But he ran anyway... and whether it was a combination of ego and a desire to transform America, or a desire to pay America back for perceived harm done by America to blacks and non European countries it wasn't a valid reason to chase the office.
In the end Obama has done nothing but damage the country. He has made racism worse because blacks feel he's been treated poorly, it's understandable they'd feel that way but that doesn't change the fact that he has harmed racial relations. The temptation is to say he's in over his head but to be honest the Skeptic isn't quite sure that he isn't trying to harm the country which is exactly the reason the president should be a natural born citizen. Just imagine how different things would be if the first black president was unquestionably eligible to hold the office and if his policies were somewhat closer to mainstream. The Skeptic hopes it won't be long until that happens but he thinks Mr. Obama might have put that day on hold for a long time to come.
So does the birth certificate matter? Not really, all it would prove was the place of his birth, it won't change who his father was and it won't change his agenda. It's an illegitimate presidency but it's also a wasted opportunity and Barack Obama alone is responsible for that.