Actually those on both sides of the issue are Birthers. Anyone who believes Obama was born in Hawaii, without actual proof, is a Birther, just as those who believe he was not born in Hawaii without actual proof, are also Birthers.
Everyone who has an opinion on where obama was born is a Birther. Only those who are waiting for actual proof before deciding on the issue are not Birthers.
So, that makes Sarah a birther, and also Tokyo Rove and Ted Baxter too. Trump turns out to NOT be a birther because he is waiting for proof.
The term “birther” is nonsensical on its face. It means different things to different people.
Those of us who insist that a presidential candidate establish his eligibility under the provisions of the constitution may or may not agree on where we “think” Obama was born. What we believe in terms of birth location is irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether Obama (and any future presidential candidate) meets the constitutional requirements to serve.
The only difference between most conservatives on this issue is whether we think Obama actually established his eligibility (providing verifiable proof) in the first place. Some of us think he most certainly has not done so, and others think he did. Those who think he did establish his eligibility have not examined the matter closely and have allowed themselves to be deceived.
To me, the most appropriate terms would be “Strict Constitutionalists”, at least on this single constitutional provision.