Maybe when the Birther cause was taken over by people who had no clue about fountain pens and manual typewriters WND reconsidered their own position.
There is no PROOF of anything here. Only what those liars Dunham and Obama may have told INS at the time, OR what those liars in the records office in Hawaii may have told them.
It was commonplace for the Hawaii records office to lie about foreigners having been born in Hawaii. It means nothing, without better documentation.
At one time, people born outside Hawaii may have been able to get a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth by deceiving officials, but that's different from the records office actually lying about who was and who wasn't born in Hawaii.
Outside the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program it hasn't been established that the ordinary birth records of the state were more fraudulent than those of other states or that it was "commonplace" for Hawaiian officials to lie about who was born there.
What reason would Hawaiian health officials have had in the 1960s to lie about where one child not different from thousands of others was born?
You're right that this doesn't prove conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii, but then what would end all doubt at this point?
It's not a matter of coming up with some incontrovertible evidence that would prove to all where he was born, but a matter of the weight of evidence on each side and this adds a little more weight to the argument that he was born in the United States.
Welfare and voting fraud. The Democrats refused to admit Alaska to the Union until the Republicans agreed to admit Hawaii. At the time, Alaska was reliably Republican, and Hawaii was reliably Democrat.
And the Democrats were developing their habit of putting minorities on the welfare plantation, and admitting more immigrants from third-world countries, or countries whose citizens were likely to vote Democrat.
Machine politics has always run rampant in Hawaii. So they liked the idea of pretending that illegal aliens were citizens, even back then.