Photo credit: By: Kathryn Menu, The Sag Harbor Express – 12/2013.
Approximately eighty (80) years after the birth of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy her birth records were discovered at the Southampton Hospital in New York.
I’ve often been confronted with the following question (paraphrasing):
Even if Barack Obama was born in Kenya at the Coast Province General Hospital in 1961 why would the hospital still have his birth certificate more than forty-seven (47) years later when the document was discovered at the Kenyan hospital in 2009?
Jacqueline Lee Bouvier (First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy) was born July 28th 1929 at the Southampton Hospital in Southampton, New York.
In 2009 a certified copy of Barack H. Obama II’s Kenyan birth certificate was discovered at the Coast Province General Hospital in Kenya. During that very same year of 2009 a man named Robert I. Ross (pictured above) at the Southampton Hospital in New York stumbled upon a ragged old yellow manila envelope marked Jacqueline Bouvier.
On the envelope, someone years later had scribbled the words, “Now Mrs. Jack Kennedy (Mrs. President Kennedy),” and years after that, a staffer had added, “Mrs. Jacqueline Onassis.”
Inside the manila envelope were birth records of a healthy newborn identified only as “Baby Girl Bouvier” having been born at the Southampton Hospital on the evening of July 28, 1929. There were four-pages in the handwritten medical file and a one-page typed discharge summary.
The said pages described a fourteen (14) day hospital stay, typical at the time, of a “newborn female Catholic” weighing in at eight (8) pounds who was “born healthy, slept well, nursed well” and received a “final diagnosis” of “normal infancy” from a “Dr. Caldwell.”
After the 2009 discovery the Southampton Hospital grappled briefly with whether or not it should hold on to the records as essential to the history of the Hamptons or offer them to John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston.
In December 2013 the birth records of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy were donated to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston.
Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.
Jacqueline Lee (Bouvier) Kennedy Onassis
IMO – Ms. Kennedy Onassis was one very pretty, smart, accomplished and classy lady!
I haven’t researched the matter but it has always been my general impression that she was a true political ‘liberal’ in the original and finest sense of the term, and NOT a BIG GOVERNMENT advocating (ugh) ‘progressive’.
Jacqueline Bouvier – 1935, pictured at about age 6
Image Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Jacqueline_Bouvier_by_David_Berne,_1935.jpg
I posted a reference to this very interesting post regarding the recently found hospital BC for Jacqueline Bouvier on the InspectorSmith Forum, in the sub-forum: The ‘Lucas Daniel Smith, Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate’ is AUTHENTIC, Compilation of Support Data’
The title of the new thread is: Hospitals CAN maintain BIRTH CERTIFICATE records for over 47 years!
The thread can be viewed at:
http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/InspectorSmith/showthread.php/7642-Hospitals-CAN-maintain-BIRTH-CERTIFICATE-RECORDS-for-over-47-years!
IF you had actually gotten Obama’s birth certificate in Mombasa, Kenya, as you claim, you would be willing to show proof that you had GONE to Kenya—which you have never done (I wonder why not???)
@ ellen:
Aaron Shwatt: “Ho ho, he he, ha ha. Strange things are happening.”
I’m still waiting on Obots to provide “original proof” for where Obama was born – not some sorry ass substitute paper that could be manipulated.
Tim Adams: “My supervisors told me there is no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii.”
Mike Evans: “My good friend Neil Abercommie said there is no birth certificate in Hawaii for Barack Obama.”
So… no birth certificate?
HistorianDude wrote:
Its not about a birth certificate. Its about a hospital holding onto tangible (i.e., paper) birth records for 80 years.
@ Lucas Daniel Smith:
Nonsense. “Birth records” are medical records. Birth certificates are vital statistics records. These are completely different things, created for completely different purposes and maintained by completely different entities.
If you had found a hospital keeping somebody’s souvenir birth certificate for 80 years, that would be interesting (and relevant to your own claims). A medical record specially kept because it was that of a celebrity? Not so much,
@ HistorianDude:
No, its not nonsense.
The argument presented by the skeptics (and exceedingly biased Obots) was that hospitals would not keep tangible (paper) birth records for nearly 50 years.
The argument makes sense. Its just too much paper to save for nearly 50 years. Where would hospitals store nearly 50 years worth of birth records?
Its a serious issue for hospitals, especially if they been around for more than 50 years.
In my hometown of Cedar Rapids, Iowa we have a company called SourceCorp. Their website is http://www.sourcecorp.com
Sourcecorp digitizes tangible paper records. Their biggest contracts are with hospitals and healthcare providers.
My report regarding First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s tangible (paper) birth records being found at the Southampton Hospital approximately eighty (80) after her birth was to demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE for hospitals to save tangible birth records for long periods of time.
Lucas Daniel Smith wrote:
OF course it is. As straw men go, the one you are trying to set up an knock down could not make less sense.
Argument against what? In five years of birther watching, I have never seen an Obot make that argument, almost certainly because it’s not really an argument against anything. I certainly have never heard one make it as an argument against your alleged Obama certificate.
But let’s pretend for a second that somebody did. The Jackie O record does not contradict that. The notations on the envelope proves that it was given special treatment because it was early identified as the medical record of a celebrity. It tells us nothing about this particular hospital’s general retention of general medical records. It tells even us less about the general retention records of any other American hospital. And it tells massively less about the general retention records in other country’s on other continents.
Yes… digitizing medical records is currently undergoing a big push. Progress is all over the map, and records such as those belonging to Jackie O are likely to be kept on paper if for no other reason than they actually have value for collectors. It actually tells us almost nothing.
Who ever hallucinated that it was not possible?
@ HistorianDude:
Barack Obama was born in 1961.
Jacqueline Kennedy was born in 1929.
Barack Obama was elected in 1996 to the Illinois Senate, making him a celebrity from Kenya.
Jacqueline Kennedy married John F. Kennedy in 1953. At that point John. F. Kennedy was a newly elected US Senator in Massachusetts.
In 1960 John. F. Kennedy was elected as President and in 1961 Jacqueline Kennedy officially became the first lady.
Conclusion:
Barack Obama becomes a Kenyan celebrity approximately 35 years after his birth.
Jacqueline Kennedy Kennedy becomes a US celebrity when she becomes the First Lady approximately 32 years after her birth.
35 years after Barack Obama’s birth Coast Province General Hospital may have specially kept Barack Obama’s birth records because it was that of a celebrity.
32 years after Jacqueline Kennedy’s birth Coast Province General Hospital may have specially kept Jacqueline Kennedy’s birth because it was that of a celebrity.
Lucas Daniel Smith wrote:
There you go again. You keep confusing completely different things.
It hardly matters whether or not a hospital has kept Obama’s paper birth records. You have shown us none.
You have showed what you claimed is his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. But hospitals (which do retain medical records) don’t retain birth certificates. The Jackie O record is certainly not one.
Rambo Ike wrote:
H – E – A – R – S – A – Y.
@ bob:
You forgot to include this: “I’m still waiting on Obots to provide “original proof” for where Obama was born – not some sorry ass substitute paper that could be manipulated.”
You say Hearsay? You are correct. Adams & Abercommie’s hearsay is equivalent to Hawaiian officials saying there is a birth certificate.
The problem: No original source has ever been provided to conclusively prove Obama was born in Hawaii. For proof we’ve been given substitutes that are claimed to be a product of that original source. A source that is being kept hidden.
As for the Kenyan birth it didn’t start with Lucas Smith.
Rambo Ike wrote:
Actually, no. It’s not.
I refer you to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Specifically Rules 803 (9), and 902 (4)(a).
What HistorianDude said about hearsay. The State of Hawaii’s birth certificate for President Obama is sufficient legal proof of his birth. Adams’ office gossip isn’t.
With respect to Abercrombie, Evans retracted his story. You’re welcome.
Rambo Ike wrote:
Regardless of where the lie started, Smith has been one of its main (and enduring) proponents.
@ HistorianDude:
Why didn’t you include my other 2 paragraphs.
It’s nice to know there are Federal Rules of Evidence. Thx for the info.
The problem still exists: No original source has ever been provided to conclusively prove Obama was born in Hawaii. For proof we have been given substitutes that are claimed to be a product of that original source. A source that is being kept hidden and treated as a national security secret.
Abercommie lied about seeing Obama as a baby with his parents, and then after promising he couldn’t find a birth certificate. That should carry alot of weight on this issue.
Rambo Ike wrote:
No original birth certificate is provided to the millions who obtain passports, driver’s licenses, marriage licences, etc.
No president, or presidential candidate, has ever shown an original birth document. Those documents are not in the public domain. You have probably never seen your own original birth document and could not even if you wanted. Restricted access does not equal hidden. That is why there are state agencies that exist to facilitate the distribution of birth certificates and retain the original in a secure place.
Your insistence on viewing the original birth certificate shows your absolute foolishness. Not only is it an insincere request, it would be a logistic nightmare.
Of course, you know that. It is kinda like LLDS saying that he won’t show his Kenya visa because the skeptics will say it is fake.
Nothing wrong with being wrong. A person of character has no problem admitting a mistake. When will you admit yours?
Rambo Ike wrote:
Because they were completely uninteresting to me.
I am on a mission to civilize. You’re welcome.
Let’s return to those Federal Rules of Evidence, and then take a single further step by putting them in the context of a civil trial where the burden of proof is “the preponderance of evidence.”
In this case, I point to Rule 803 (11). The simple statement by Obama that he was born in Hawaii would be admissible in court at evidence of that he is a natural born US citizen. With that statement, he establishes (for the moment) the “preponderance of evidence. It now becomes the responsibility of birthers to rebut that statement with comparable or superior evidence that he was not born in Hawaii. After more than five years, birthers have failed to do even that.
As pointed out previously, the statements by Adams and Evans are hearsay and therefore (by the FRE) inadmissible. So they fail to meet that burden. Furthermore, there is not a single contradictory statement by anyone that is both true and capable of meeting one of the Rule 803 hearsay exceptions. So all “original source” documents aside, your problem is far greater than than the probitive value of statements by Hawaiian officials. Your problem is that you can’t even rebut the bald claim by Obama that he was born in Hawaii.
Nothing is being kept secret. The President’s original birth certificate is simply protected by the same laws that protect yours and mine. The President can release anything he wants, and he has released his birth certificate twice. But the State of Hawaii does not have the same latitude.
That said, we’ll ignore first and foremost the simple fact that you personally will never get to see anything anyway. You will never hold the President’s birth certificate in your hand; not any certified copy and certainly not the original. The very best you will ever personally see is an image of the original document either posted on line or published in a newspaper. And in case you haven’t noticed, you got that more than three years ago.
As to any authority with the power and position to actually demand to see a certified copy or more, you (meaning birthers) have an unblemished five year record of failure when it comes to giving those authorities a reason to make that demand. You have yet to so much as rebut the President’s bald assertion of Hawaiian birth.
It would carry some weight, were it actually true. Sadly, you have no evidence that Abercrombie did NOT ever see Obama as a baby with his parents, and the second assertion is actually false. The claim that Abercrombie “could’t find a birth certificate” is a birther fabrication. He certainly was prevented by law from releasing it. It is also highly likely that he was prevented by law from even seeing it himself. But he never said he couldn’t find one.
Your arguments would be so much stringer if you didn’t liberally leaven them with fiction.
Wanted to correct a typo in the previous post. I was referring to FRE Rule 803 (19), not 803 (11). Specifically: