I wouldn’t take that as proof that Rush espouses this theory. It’s just a funny joke, whether you buy this “birther” business or not.
For the record, my thought on this issue is that because being born in the U.S. is a constitutional requirement for the presidency, EVERY candidate should submit proof of U.S. birth that can be accessed by the public. However, this is a case of “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Those who think there’s something to be uncovered here should dig quietly until they’ve found some proof, and then make a credible presentation to the public. Continuing to shout about this without really convincing evidence (at least none that I’ve seen) looks a bit kooky and desperate at this point. And it’s a distraction from the more immediate problems of the Obama presidency. My sense is that Rush feels pretty much the same way.
1. Do you simply take his word for it?
2. Or, can you refer me to a legal document that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in the United States?
3. And, sorry, you cannot refer to that so-called "birth certifcate" displayed on Obama's site with the June 2007 date stamped on the back. Too much dispute surrounding it.
4. Just wondering: Why does Obama display a birth certificate with a date of 2007 stamped on the back?
5. That is, why doesn't Obama display a birth certificate with the date of Aug. 1961 stamped on the back, the year that Obama claims he was born in Hawaii?
6. Do you think that Obama, the President of the United States no less, somehow failed to protect his 1961 birth certificate as he should, and he lost his Aug. 1961 dated Hawaii birth certificate?