To: Demosthenes
I suspect he might have been born in 1959, just prior to Hawaii being admitted to the union. That is why they are hiding it.
62 posted on
11/06/2008 2:05:54 PM PST by
kkalman
To: kkalman
Hawaii was a territory. If he was born in 1959, he would be eligible to run for president.
72 posted on
11/06/2008 2:13:17 PM PST by
carton253
(So this is how liberty ends - with thunderous applause.)
To: kkalman
I suspect he might have been born in 1959, just prior to Hawaii being admitted to the union.I don't think thats relevant -- Hawaii being a US Territory at the time.
92 posted on
11/06/2008 2:27:49 PM PST by
Tallguy
("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
To: kkalman
I am not sure that I agree with you, but it does seem to me that there was probably some sort of record clean-up in Hawaii in the years following statehood. By that I mean, there were probably a lot of pretty loose standards of documentation of things like births on the islands. Once the territory became a state, there were probably several years where people were taken at their word for official documents regarding things such as births, marriages so that they could be recorded as public or official documents. Given the religious background of Obama’s family, there would not have been traditional church documentation of a baptism for the baby.
To: kkalman
It wouldn’t matter. Hawaii was a territory, and therefore part of the US.
194 posted on
11/06/2008 5:33:22 PM PST by
JoeA
(JoeA / welcome to third world politics)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson