In yesterday’s “On Language” column in the New York Times Magazine, Leslie Savan wrote that while the term “birthers” — “those who insist despite all evidence to the contrary that Barack Obama doesn’t have a U.S. birth certificate and therefore cannot legally be president” — wasn’t coined by disparaging lefties. Instead, she posits, it was birthed independently by conservative bloggers Steve Gilbert and Minnesota’s Ed Morrissey nearly 12 months ago.
Savan writes:
Birther seems to have been coined about a year ago, separately, by the conservative bloggers Ed Morrissey and Steve Gilbert. Last December, in dismissing the birth-certificate argument as a “canard,” Gilbert wrote, “The ‘birthers’ are the new ‘truthers.’ ”
But the term could have a three-way byline: David Weigel, of our sister site the Washington Independent, first published the term, on Dec. 7, 2008, although he says he’s been using it conversationally a bit longer. He’s reported on the topic extensively since, discussing the movement on MSNBC and other media outlets. (Morrissey, who blogs for Hot Air, has likewise written often on the movement, which he says in an email he’s “no fan” of.)
Morrissey, in an email shared by Weigel and used here with Morrissey’s permission, says he doesn’t recall where the word was first used:
While I wouldn’t mind sharing the credit here, I don’t have a specific recollection of coining the term. And I certainly couldn’t tell you where I heard it first, whether in my own head or somewhere else. If I was the first or tied for the honor, I’d be mildly surprised…
Regardless of its origin, the term has taken off. Google now shows nearly 40 million results on a search of “birther” and “Obama.” It’s no small feat, one that, Morrissey joked in his email to Weigel, he’s “not above putting [...] on my business cards.”













13 Comments »
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
I’m a birther and am quite comfortable with the term. I know it’s meant to be derogatory but it fits with our concerns and names aren’t going to hurt us.
Beyond that, the birth certificate is really a canard, a red-herring. If it doesn’t exist, that certainly would be important but even if it does Barry doesn’t qualify to be our POTUS.
The founding fathers went to lengths to lay out the requirements to be our President and they inserted a three word clause, ‘natural born citizen’, to distinguish a special citizen from those who are naturalized.
During their deliberations, the founding fathers used a body of work called the Law of Nations as a guideline. We know this because it is mentioned by name in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This is important because ‘natural born citizen’ is defined in that body of work as a person who is born in the country (on U.S. soil) and of parentS who are citizenS (plural). Thus our presidential candidates must be born on American soil and both of their parents must be American citizens.
Since Barry’s father was a Kenyan national (not a US citizen) and, to make matters worse, was a British subject (said subjugation falling automatically to the children at birth), Barry cannot possibly be eligible to be the POTUS.
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Hey idiot (since words can’t hurt you) he was born in Hiawaii, therefore a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!
You have been leagally disclaimed. The Government of the United States of American have confirmed, even those who oppose him politically, have confirmed he is indeed a real American.
go get a life. perhaps outside of the us lol
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
“he was born in Hiawaii, therefore a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!”
He might have been born in Hawaii (never heard of Hiawaii). That question remains to be answered.
More importantly, however, is the fact that (assuming) he was born in Hawaii, he was also born with dual loyalties – and BRITISH loyalty at that! No doubt our founding fathers are rolling over in their collective graves.
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
prsmith is correct. Obama is not now, nor could he ever have been, a natural born citizen. At the least, he is a dual British/Kenyan and USA citizen. Regardless, we have a right to see the birth certificate.
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of Obama’s parents at the time have no bearing on Obama’s own citizenship.
Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace). Here’s how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explains the difference:
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).
It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth.
Berg v. Obama lawsuit dismissed
A federal lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by attorney Philip J. Berg charged that Obama was either born or naturalized in a foreign country and is therefore ineligible for the office of President. The case was thrown out of court on Friday, October 24, 2008 by U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick, who concluded in his decision that Berg’s arguments were, among other things, “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Stick to the facts, not propaganda.
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 9:15 am
It is funny when the birthers continue to use their same aliases when spreading their lies. If these people actually learned their American history, they would realize that Obama isn’t the first president who father wasn’t born in America. Anyways the only thing new now is that the Internet.
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 10:08 am
Yes, a simple google is all that is needed to get a little history down your belt. No longer do you need to go open up the ole big dusty reference books….
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,
James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother were born respectively Canada
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 10:27 am
When facts are given, the crazies are at least quiet for a moment.
The point with these types of people though is that fact doesn’t mean anything to them. They need the conspiracy to live and breath.
These are the same people that think every house is bugged, that little green men are going to take over the world, that baby alligators get flushed down the toilet and grow up to be overgrown green monsters in the New York Subway system.
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 10:36 am
I think its funny how people try and use familar names to try and belittle people, such as Barry.
I have a friend named Michael. He went by Mikey as a kid, and then mike as a young adult we all call him Michael now as an older adult. That is what his pefered name.
Disrespect to anyone for any reason is exactly that disgraceful.
I thought our last president was a criminal, lower than average in IQ, and put my personal life and all of America into grave danger.
I Always refered to him as Mr. President.
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 11:12 am
If I understand this correctly,Obama and his people have provided a “cerificate of live birth”, but not the long form birth certificate which is verified at the time a child is born and by the doctor at the hospital where a child was born. I have also read that Obama has hired the
Perkins Coie law firm ( which employs the husband of his former PR person, Anita Dunn), to fight lawsuits that would force the release of this long form. If this is all true, then why the need for legal peotection? The long form does exist. All he has to do is release it.
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Re: “The long form does exist. All he has to do is release it.”
Sure it exists, but Hawaii does not send it out any more. Hawaii sends out only the Certification of Live Birth. That is what it sends to everyone, and that is what it sent to Obama when he asked for his birth certificate back in 2007.
Obama cannot show a copy of his original birth certificate because he does not have it. Hawaii has a copy of the original, but it does not send out copies of the original to anyone, not even the person who is named. It sends only the Certification, which is now the official birth certificate of the State.
The facts on that birth certificate have been twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.
Since Obama does not have a copy of the original, he cannot release it. He can ask Hawaii to release it, but that would be to ask Hawaii to do something that it does not do for everyone else, and it would be unnecessary because the Certification is the OFFICIAL birth certificate, accepted by all the departments in Hawaii (yes, including DHHL. I asked) as proof of birth in Hawaii and accepted by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA.
The way to see a copy of the original, which will simply show that Obama was born in Hawaii as the officials said, is to get Hawaii to change the law or the regulations or both in order to send out copies of the original. But currently Hawaii does not.
Comment posted November 30, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
Poor little Birthers/Birchers, (still in denial about their failure) Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed).
Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.
http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-oreilly-slams-orly-taitz/
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pd...
To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.
In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.
I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). She wants to re-establish a family values party.
I can only hope that Taitz will resist the state collectors that will be coming to collect the $20K.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment