by Garrett O’Brien, originally published 1-May-2015

Part 1 can be viewed by clicking here

I had been waiting for a good counterpoint to debate but all evidence brought forward by those saying Cruz is not eligible fell short of having any sound knowledge, Godly wisdom, or discernment behind their argument.

LOTS of knowledge being used incorrectly does not make a substantiated argument but only a loud fool.

All the neigh sayers were creating Post Hoc Ergo Post Hoc fallacy archive that fell flat long before the posts or articles were even finished.

When any wants to sharpen a knife on a sponge, it is time to take leave and let them be — they are not about to listen to anything or anyone save their own voice and those that agree with it…

I did, however, come across a comment published by one Most Rev. Archbishop Gregori that doesn’t follow the fallacy…

Can’t find much about the Reverend save that he supposedly had a one-on-one conversation with Obama early in 2011 (January or February) [the link provided is broken and Google searches didn’t provide any more clues].

His Disques profile notes him as a member of the Orthodox Catholic clergy in Webster NY and is a contributor to the Patriot Action Network.

Not much else about him is on the internet… yet…

Here’s his rebuttal to one of the fallacies/arguments where the author claimed once again Cruz is not eligible for the U.S. Presidency…

I’ve added links to his references as well as corrected a few items (such as 1874 corrected to 1875 – the year of the hearing and decision of the Minor v Happersett case)

“Cruz is a citizen by birth, but he is NOT a ‘natural born” citizen.’

“In “Minor v. Happersett (1875) archive , the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural-born citizen.

Background: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state’s laws allowed only men to vote. The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote. The 19th Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex. Minor v. Happersett continued to be cited in support of restrictive election laws of other types until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court started interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to guarantee voting rights. [wikipedia]

“A clear and undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our nation specifically define an Article 2 Section 1 [Clause 5] natural-born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to parents (that’s plural, meaning both Father and Mother) who are citizens.

“Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.

“In the Minor vs. Happersett case, the Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens.

“The Court stated that such persons were ‘natural-born citizens’.

The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their ‘citizenship’ was never in doubt.

“By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of the class of persons who were natural-born citizens, they established her citizenship which was required before they could get to the issue of whether she had the right to vote.

“By so doing, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

“In order for this precedent to be reversed, 1 of 2 things are necessary…

  1. A Constitutional amendment which specifically defines ‘natural born Citizen’ more inclusively than Minor did, or;
  2. A Supreme Court case to overrule the definition of a natural-born citizen in the Minor case.


“The argument as to whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya is really a moot point, because even IF he was born in Hawaii, he would be a citizen of the United States, but NOT a “natural born” citizen because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

Counterpoint: True however his mother WAS a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. The Law of Nations is credited with placing the father as the determining factor of a child’s citizenship. In both Obama and Cruz’s cases, their mothers were U.S. citizens at the time of their births (and still are in Cruz’s case, Obama’s mother did die as a U.S.citizen). In Obama’s case, his father never pursued U.S. citizenship — in Cruz’s case, his father did gain U.S citizenship in 2005. Obama’s mother had to have been a resident of the U.S. for 10 years, at least 5 of which were beyond the age of 14. Ann Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born, further removing Obama’s eligibility as a citizen (my personal opinion agrees with many that say we have an illegitimate President).

“Marco Rubio was born in May 1971 in Miami, Florida, which makes him a “CITIZEN” of the U.S. His parents were legal immigrants from Cuba.

“They did NOT become U.S. citizens until November 1975, which makes Rubio a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural-born citizen.

“Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

“His father was born in Cuba, lived in the U.S. on a student visa, who then went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen.

“Cruz’s father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005.

“Therefore, it can be argued that since Ted Cruz’s mother holds U.S. citizenship, then Ted is also a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural-born citizen.

“However, having been born in Canada and his father holding Canadian citizenship at the time, means that Ted also holds dual citizenship with Canada and the United States.

“This makes him doubly ineligible to be president.

“Cruz announced he was giving up his dual citizenship when the issue of his ineligibility came up in mid – 2013.

“Apparently, Cruz believes that he [can] make himself a legal ‘natural born’ citizen at any time, just by renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

“Here is the inconvenient truth: Sorry, Ted, but like the fraud in the White House, you were born with dual citizenship, and you cannot become a ‘natural -orn’ citizen even if you do renounce your Canadian citizenship.

It just doesn’t work that way.

Counterpoint: There’s nothing saying dual citizens don’t count as natural-born — no source documentation can be found that says anything of this sort. Cruz’s desire to renounce his Canadian Citizenship came about after ‘The Dallas Morning News’ brought the Canadian citizenship matter to his attention archive . Cruz immediately started the renunciation process as his allegiance and heart are with the U.S. and not split between Canada and the U.S. The Reverend, while documenting strongly in the beginning has now fallen upon personal opinion and has not provided anything documented to substantiate his claim.

“Even though Cruz was born in Canada, he was American from the moment of his birth.

“Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was a US citizen from Delaware archive .

“His father, Rafael Cruz, was a Cuban national who had received a green card while living in the US archive (he eventually became a US citizen in 2005).

“Under American law archive , Cruz would be born an American despite having only one US citizen parent as long as that parent — his mother — had physically lived in the United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years had been after her 14th birthday.

“Cruz’s mother easily cleared that bar, so Cruz’s citizenship is not debatable.

“In the case of Bobby Jindal, his parents arrived Feb 1, 1971, his mother was 5 months pregnant when they arrived on U.S. soil and obtained green cards, and a bit over 4 months later, on June 10, 1971, Piyush (Bobby) Jindal was born at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge Louisiana.

“His parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth; they were here on green cards.

“His mother became a citizen in 1976, his father in 1986. Jindal is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural-born citizen.

“It can also be argued Jindal became a U.S. citizen via the fraudulent ‘anchor baby’ bastardization of the 14th Amendment.

“In any case, his parents were not illegals since they obtained green cards, but they were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.”

I have not shared all my opinions here, mostly due to time constraints at the time of this publication.

We all know this is NOT going to go away and the Left will undoubtedly make an issue of it while sweeping Obama’s citizenship issues under the rug or sealing them up permanently somehow in a court of law.

Your counterpoints and supporting points are welcome on social media (comments were closed at the time of this republication)…

image credit :
image credit :


Currently, comments are closed. We have just returned online and are rebuilding many facets of our site. Comments on our site are temporarily disabled until we have the programming for the management of comments tested and placed into production. Feel free to visit our social media accounts found here to share your thoughs or provide more information. Be sure to let everyone know which post your referring to by providing the post link.

About Garrett O’Brien

Garrett is the owner of DecisiveLiberty.News. Formerly a Liberal then a Republican, Garrett has seen political parties by default look out for themselves and not the people. Garrett now focuses specifically on our Constitution as it is written. He uses Decisive Liberty as a platform to provide a voice to those that believe neither political party are protecting our Constitution nor our Rights to their fullest as our Founding Fathers wrote them in the First 10 Amendments. For the moment, Garrett resides in Brazil with his wife.

Recent Posts by Garrett O'BrienView more...

Churchill: Prudence Statesmanship Understanding (3/18/2023) - When you hear of a college that ditches textbooks in favor of original source documents, you know everything their students learn has not been filtered and probably can count on what they learn as not being biased as well. Hillsdale College is such a college and offer free online courses, which are good for a certificate after passing their final quiz. They offer a variety of courses which can be seen here, with their latest focusing on Winston Churchill. Why Study Churchill? There are 3 principal reasons to study the life and writings of Winston Churchill… The 1st is that the study of Churchill teaches lessons about prudence, the virtue...
UraniumOne-road UPDATED: What LaVoy May Not Have Known and You Should About UraniumOne (3/18/2023) - What is probably the Genesis of the decades-old land grab by the White House means this effort goes higher up than the FBI and may even start at the U.S. Attorney General's office (archive
Don’t Look At the Elections For the Change You Are Seeking (3/13/2023) - We all want change, but are we looking in the right places to make the change we want effective?
Verses They Live By (3/11/2023) - Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by the historical context contained in the surrounding text. There are 164 such verses in the Quran that everyone needs to know about... (archive https://archive.Nv1Wh)
You Believe There is No or Minimal Voter Fraud? (3/10/2023) - Shortly after Catherine Engelbrecht founded and lead True to Vote and King Street Patriots, she was visited by law enforcement agencies and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). Since then, Catherine Engelbrecht has been the tip of the spear on voting integrity since 2008. (archive
The Story and History of Ivermectin UNCENSORED (3/8/2023) - If Ivermectin were as bad as the MSM narrative says it is, then why is the demand for Ivermectin consistently and persistently increasing? Why have countries now adopted Ivermectin as the drug of choice to combat COVID-19? Why did WHO endorse it in 2019? Why did the FDA and CDC list as the safest drug for human consumption for infections? (archive


Died Suddenly - Conspiracy No More

Please view the Trailer for this video first. The graphic imagery is intentional as it is the only way you will know what is happening; Big Pharma is counting on you NOT knowing what is really happening.

The trailer can be viewed by clicking here (opens in our rumble account).

The audio and the video is NOT suitable for children - please view when they are not present (use earphones or headset to keep young ears from listening in).

From the Directors of 'These Little Ones' and 'Watch the Water'

Embalmers and funeral homes see the results of what has been happening for the past 2 years - something is WAY different, it isn't good, and they aren't happy...

Life insurance companies are fully aware of the results the embalmers and funeral directors are seeing and reporting.

Sudden Adult Death Syyndrome (SADS) is NOT a syndrome - it is a result of foreign substances that are in the vaccines, one of them being Graphene Oxide, that are create inorganic strings in the blood system that eventually stops the blood, dead.

All rights belong to SPN - Stew Peters Network

Reflections from Decisive Liberty

The following stance is stated in the final paragraph of the oration given for the unveiling of our Statue of Liberty on the 28th of October, 1886....

... there is room in America and brotherhood for all who will support our institutions and aid in our development; but those who come to disturb our peace and dethrone our laws are aliens and enemies forever.

You can view the full oration by clicking here.

We at Decisive Liberty are committed to this stance and welcome all - if you have not already - to join us in learning to live by this stance.

We are but 1 of 2 nations that have placed God within their Constitution: one was created by God for the people He loves, the other created by the people who love Him.

PROMOTION: Check out our Substack site - just click this image to visit our substack!

Click the image above to visit our Substack content.
Be sure to enroll for our Substack newsletter!
All Substack content is free and arrives once or twice a day! On a hot news day, you may see it arrive 3 or 4 times.
You can easily unsubscribe from any newsletter.

Our Pledge

DL Pledge

Previous and Next Available Post

Enable Notifications OK No thanks