If Obama is 46 years old as articles state he would have had to have been born in 1962, not 1964. 2008-46=1962. Which is it? A lot of explaining to do here!?!?
Birth certificate on the LA Times blog site says that he was born in 1961? If so how could he have been 3 in 1967 as the other article claims. He would have been 6 years old, not 3 in 1967 if he was indeed born in 1961. So how can the article claim that he was 3 in 1967. Could be a mistake by the journalist, don’t know.
Isn’t his birthday DEc 7? That might account for ayear discrepancy. I think he is turning 47 isn’t he? In Dec of this year.