But the term "birther" was used by the Leftists to try to intimidate those who had legitimate issues with Obama's birth status. The Left, who basically never have a reasonable argument about much of anything, always use intimidation tactics instead. They have always tried to use "birther" as a tool of intimidation against those arguing for legitimate proof of Obama's origins and nationality.
So why do we (we=the good guys, us, the freedom lovers) want to validate their tactics by picking up and use the term, "birther", the way they did/do?
I've always said I'm a "birther" becasue I don't believe Obama has come clean or been willing to show clearly and plainly why he is a natural born citizen. I've been proud to be a birther - I feel like its' a badge of honer when the Leftists label you with a derogatory term that really means you defend the Constitution.
The actual meaning of "natural born citizen" is another story. My take is that, as I think you said, location isn't the issue as many think it is. It's who your birth parents are and if at least one of them is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth. (I'm not so clear on the historical perspective of why it doesn't have to be both parents, however.)
Nothing is more important than defending the Constitution, including the Article II natural born Citizen requirement for POTUS.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789