Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs in 2016 Presidential Straw Poll: Wins Early GOP Vote Over Walker, Paul

You can't counter the reasoning presented in this thread.

There has been no reasoning presented in the thread.

There have been sophistic attempts to obfuscate the plain truth, that John Marshall specifically quoted Vattel on Citizenship, and proclaimed it "more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands".

The fact that he did so has you guys helplessly scouring the rest of the case like cockroaches trying to find a crumb in support of your argument.

He was providing no definition of citizenship at all, much less any definition of NATURAL BORN citizenship.

Yes, my own eyes are lying to me.

John Marshall:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

.

The case doesn't even use the words "natural born" one single time.

Let me acquaint you with a basic English concept referred to as a synonym. Most of us learned about them in grade school, but you must have missed all the lessons.

And yet you insist that Marshall was giving us a definition not only of citizenship, but of natural born citizenship.

I can only regard this statement as a feeble attempt at hypnosis, for it is silly on a level to which no conscious person could be susceptible .

That's just idiotic. And anybody can read the case for himself, and if he's not a birther, he can plainly SEE that your point is idiotic.

Yes, as anyone can plainly see, John Marshall is NOT quoting a definition of Citizenship and he is NOT proclaiming it to be "more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands".

John Marshall:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

It boggles the mind that you seem to think these arguments will fool anyone.

The Court in Wong clearly decided that Wong was a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. This is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the ENTIRE RATIONALE AND REASONING OF THE CASE.

Sure they did, and that's why the words "NATURAL BORN" are so prominently listed in the opinion. The 14th amendment had nothing to do with it.

Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark, 1898:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Well Jeff, "You seem unable to read an entire case and to understand it."

.

There's not a judge or any major legal scholar anywhere who says anything different.

Yes, the fact that so many people repeat something means it MUST be true.

Of course your allegation is a lie, it's already been demonstrated to you that there are plenty of contradictory opinions on the issue, you simply keep repeating that there are none. LIE LIE LIE LIE.

The question the Court was asked was "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen?" Nobody cared whether he was specifically a natural born citizen eligible to be President. They asked whether he was a citizen.

And the response of the court was:

Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark, 1898:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

He was a 14th amendment citizen, not a "natural born" citizen. We know from Justice Waite that the two are not the same thing.

Only an idiot would keep saying stupid things like "You mix up 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen,' or 'The Court only found Wong to be a 'citizen,' they didn't find him to be a 'natural born citizen.'"

No Jeff, only an IDIOT would keep saying that "citizen" means the same thing as "natural born citizen." The fact that article II distinguishes between the two terms demonstrates that "citizen" does not equal "natural citizen."

Eat your anchor baby soup Jeff. You ordered it.

Tell that to the conservatives in the U.S. Senate. Some of Obama’s judicial nominees have been confirmed unanimously.

Unanimously? Well it must be true then. Obviously nothing in the world has ever been demonstrated to be false when it was decided by unanimous vote!

Given that Bush appointee John Roberts voted for Obamacare, I can't WAIT to see how these new Obama appointees behave on issues of taxation, ObamaCare, Gay Marriage, Paying for Abortion, Illegal Immigration and other issues affecting us today.

Why it will be a total surprise how they vote!

Honestly, I think you need psychological help.

And I am absolutely serious when I say that.

There's no record that they discussed the natural born citizen requirement outside of the committee.

But, have you considered:

Isn't it possible that the Constitutional Convention's final Committee of Style agreed upon a specific definition for the "natural born citizen" term and intended that the specific definition be expressly stated in the text of the Constitution?

Isn't it also possible that some East African mole with great foresight somehow induced Jacob Shallus to omit the specific definition from the formal text and that nobody else noticed?

Supporting Evidence: Kenya is in East Africa!

The case doesn't even use the words "natural born" one single time.

Let me acquaint you with a basic English concept referred to as a synonym. Most of us learned about them in grade school, but you must have missed all the lessons.

So "natives" and "indigenes" are supposedly an absolute, direct SYNONYM in the language of United States law for "natural born citizen?"

Do you not understand that you can't prove something by first assuming it to be true?

That's BASIC. That's about the most fundamental principle of logic out there.

I hate to break the news to you, but you're an idiot.

But, have you considered:

Isn't it possible that the Constitutional Convention's final Committee of Style agreed upon a specific definition for the "natural born citizen" term and intended that the specific definition be expressly stated in the text of the Constitution?

Isn't it also possible that some East African mole with great foresight somehow induced Jacob Shallus to omit the specific definition from the formal text and that nobody else noticed?

Supporting Evidence: Kenya is in East Africa!

Damn. You're right. It all fits together now.

Imagine that. We were wrong all the time.

Honestly, I think you need psychological help.

And I am absolutely serious when I say that.

Psychotics are usually serious.

Me: The Court in Wong clearly decided that Wong was a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. This is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the ENTIRE RATIONALE AND REASONING OF THE CASE.

You (sarcastically):Sure they did, and that's why the words "NATURAL BORN" are so prominently listed in the opinion.

Yes, it is.

It's why those words - "natural born" - are used no less than thirty-five times in that Opinion, along with a number of closely related words and phrases.

As opposed to ZERO times in The Venus.

It also has something to do with why the word "birth" is used seventy times in Wong.

Ah, we ARE full of "nuance".

Answers that you haven't thought about are easy to supply.

First you alleged that a Judge's opinion outside of a holding is irrelevant, then you suggest that an explicit quote by a judge didn't deal with the issue in question anyway. Well which is it,

Those are same thing. Matters discussed that are not directly pertinent to the question presented in the case are, by definition, not part of the "holding" (ratio decidendi) of the case.

It is the foundation of his point. How does a foundation not support that which is built upon it? Understanding the base of citizenship is necessary before the logic of a citizen's obligations and privileges can be made clear.

There is no attempt to connect this "answer" to any part of Marshall's opinion. You're just flying in the vaccum of your own cranial space here.

You have proffered the conclusion that a Judge's opinion is inconsequential unless it is part of a holding;

As far as the analytical/precedential value of a case, that is exactly how holdings are understood outside of Wonderland.

in contradiction to the contrary suggestion that Judges generally know what they are talking about, even when not issuing a holding.

These "other" portions are given respect (and often in SCOTUS cases, considerable respect unless and until there is a case more directly on point). It's just that people outside of Wonderland know not to base their argument too heavily on these pieces of dicta.

That it is not part of a holding is irrelevant. It is still the Judge's opinion of what is the law.

And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen." You've got a major logical leap and absence of proof to get from Point A to Point B there. You just assume way the problem. Here's your broken-chain-of-logic:

a. In a case presenting (by his own words) an issue of domicile in an international law matter, C.J. Marshall quotes several paragraphs from Vattel, using the translation that speaks of "indigenes" (not "natural born citizen").
b. Marshall had direct connections with several of the Constitutional framers.
c. Even though The Venus case did not speak at all about the U.S. Constitution, it should be accepted that this represents Marshall's view that "natural born citizen" in Article II has the meaning given to "indigenes" in that translation.

Holy leap of logic, Batman!! That you tout yourself as the paragon of logical thinking is gut-bustingly amusing.

And like a projectionist has control of the projection, you are seeing what you wish to see.

That looking glass reflects well, doesn't it?

The fallacy is one of FALSE AUTHORITY. Justice Marshall is not a false authority. As a front seat witness to the events, he is, in fact, an ACTUAL authority.

Of course, he doesn't actually say that what he quotes in the least relates to Article II. There is no mention of the Constitution all all in the case, majority or dissent. But your Actual Authority subscription must come with a bonus "fill in the gaps in proof" voucher. Wonderland is quite a place.

When the topic is what was the meaning and intent of the Delegates in creating Article II, Justice Marshall was in a position to know. Justice Gray was not.

Again, C.J. Marshall merely quotes Vattel on an international law question. He makes no attempt to connect Vattel with Article II. Vattel himself states England followed a different rule on citizenship, and no doubt Marshall new that Framers like Alexander Hamilton said "look to England for the lingusitic backdrop to our Constitutional terms." (See my prior post on this point.).

So, yes, C.J. Marshall is an authority. We disagee on what point he supports.

Now that I have schooled you on the difference between false authority and ACTUAL authority, perhaps you will remember it in the future, though I suspect not.

Gosh, a session in Mr. Engineer's School of Legal Authority and Interpretation! Do I get a certificate? I assure you, I shall accord it its true value and make proper use. "Number 2" comes to mind.

1.When the Framers chose that term, there was an already existing usage in which the term "natural born citizen" was being used interchangeably with the term "natural born subject."

Yes, "King" and "President" are exactly alike.

I see you excel at nonsequitturs, too.

You dodged my point entirely. Massachusetts DID use the terms NBC and NBS interchangeably. And the Vermont Constitution DID term the residents "natural born subjects." Though neither state spoke of the resisents having a "king."

You confuse two terms being used analogously and instead force an identicality that no one then ascribed to them. Thus, your lame attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails.

I'll wager I know more about this than do you.

Given you ducked my points on Blackstone, and given your alternative quotes don't negate his point that "the chidrens of aliens born in England are, generally speaking, natural born subjects," I'll take that wager. Blackstone was on most everyone's desk who had anything to do with law in America. And his statement is crystal clear.

You either need to get some more knowledge, or some intellectual Honesty.

"NBC" and "NBS" were often used interchangeably in the pre-Framing period, and the terms on their face speak to a status via/at birth. Contrary to your STUPID insistence, it does not follow that they thereby had to insist on equivalency between "citizen" and "English subject" in every respect.

Analgous. NOT identical in all respects. If you stop stumbling on that point of confusion, your argument may start to appear less inept than it does at present. Or you can continue to barricade yourself in Wonderland and keep regurgitatng arguments that make sense to few others but you.

Isn't it possible that the Constitutional Convention's final Committee of Style agreed upon a specific definition for the "natural born citizen" term ....?

I have three competing theories on this.

1. Yes they did. They were all in exact agreement as to the meaning of the term.
Corollary a. It was based on Vattel.
Corolllary b. It was based on English Common law.

2. There was no uniform understanding of the term, but everyone believed the others thought exactly like themselves, though there must have been a majority on one side.

3. In actual practice, the English Law theory closely followed the Vattel definition. Alien born children in England may have been called "subjects" but they had very different standards of acceptance within English society than did Subjects born to English Parents. Here is a law passed by William III.

Note the reference to ENGLISH PARENTS being required to hold public office?

The English simply did not grant the same class of citizenship to those born of Alien Parents as those born to English Parents.

That’s correct, confirmed unanimously. You can’t do better in Senate confirmation than that.
The point that I was making, of course, is that some Obama appointees have received support from Senate conservatives like Rand Paul and even Ted Cruz.

The case doesn't even use the words "natural born" one single time.

Still having trouble with that synonym thing? More like this argument is a pathetic straw you grasp in an effort to ward off reality.

So "natives" and "indigenes" are supposedly an absolute, direct SYNONYM in the language of United States law for "natural born citizen?"

No, of course not. Justice Waite is a complete f***ing moron.

Justice Waite: 1875

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Of course your NEXT argument is that he doesn't know what he's talking about outside of a Holding, or perhaps it will be "this case was not about Presidential eligibility" or some other childish dodge.

.

That's BASIC. That's about the most fundamental principle of logic out there.

Do you not understand that you can't prove something by first assuming it to be true?

That's precious. The worst offender against logic presumes to give me a lesson in it. I was building TTL logic circuits and compiling machine code when I was 14 @$$hole, what were you doing?

I hate to break the news to you, but you're an idiot.

Thanks. I'm sure you are as right about that as you are about everything else.

Imagine that. We were wrong all the time.

First sensible thing you've said today.

It's why those words - "natural born" - are used no less than thirty-five times in that Opinion, along with a number of closely related words and phrases.

When you make a point to quote umpteen court cases and other documents from the past relating to citizenship, the term is going to come up quite a lot. As you are so fond of pointing out though, all of that was orbiter dicta. Not holding. Do you know what the holding was?

That Wong Kim Ark was a citizen based on the 14th amendment.

Justice Gray:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, (and he even quotes it.)

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Now how do you like that dicta shoe on YOUR foot?

As opposed to ZERO times in The Venus.

Well obviously they must be talking about some OTHER type of citizenship. Please tell us what kind that is Jeff?

You are a piece of work. In Wong, you conflate anything into "natural born citizenship", but in The Venus, you do everything you can to run away from the term. That this is completely nonsensical simply doesn't register with you.

What you will do next is completely ignore the fact that you can't come up with any other term to refer to the citizenship described in The Venus. You do this every time. When you are caught, you run away like a little coward and refuse to address the point.

You are a dishonest little coward that THINKS he is clever. You make up for in Brass and Volume what you lack in intellectual honest and competence.

I have only one thing to say to you:

"Les naturels, ou indigines, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens."

Actually, I've read enough of this baloney to agree with you that there were some very important people back then who apparently looked to Vattel for guidance regarding theories of citizenship. But, I also know that many of these guys were lawyers of great ability with years of drafting experience. So, I know that:

When these guys wanted to avoid ambiguity or uncertainty, they knew how to do so.

When, instead, they wanted to delegate some discretion (wiggle) room to future decision makers, they knew how to do that, too.

The kind of fellow who had heard of Vattel and who was actually reading Vattel knew enough about politicians to know that, if it was felt to be really important to strictly bind future politicians (electors) to a definition as precise as native birth to two citizen parents, then it would be important and necessary to draft appropriately precise and binding instructions. Whether by intention or inadvertence, the Constitution includes a term without contours or boundaries as specific as Vattel might have prescribed. I think it would be unfair to the ordinary citizen of that time to just assume that any one precise definition of natural born citizen would have been obvious or commonplace.

Obviously, there are two competing interests at stake here. The first is that we want a president who is "one of us" in that he or she has a close connection to the country by heritage and by experience. The second is that we don't want to limit our pool of candidates any more than is really necessary. I think that the Constitution provides electors with some discretion in striking an appropriate balance between these competing interests.

I think the Constitution affords to this generation the liberty to choose Ted Cruz, a citizen at birth, as our president. I'm confident that if the public perceives that either his birthplace or his father presents a substantial danger, the public will simply choose someone else.

Those are same thing. Matters discussed that are not directly pertinent to the question presented in the case are, by definition, not part of the "holding" (ratio decidendi) of the case.

Which has no relevance to whether they are correct or not, despite your strenuous effort to imply that it does. Judges do not become morons in dicta.

As far as the analytical/precedential value of a case, that is exactly how holdings are understood outside of Wonderland.

I've rather come to regard a system which produces Plessy, Wickard, Roe, Larrance, Kelo, and Obamacare as to be rather INSIDE the limits of wonderland.

And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen."

Yes, the words "is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands" cannot possibly mean that he regard Vattel as the applicable standard. Give me a F***ing break. Save your bullshit for someone more gullible.

a. In a case presenting (by his own words) an issue of domicile in an international law matter, C.J. Marshall quotes several paragraphs from Vattel, using the translation that speaks of "indigenes" (not "natural born citizen").

And here's where I think you are a fogblow loon which has wandered onto the reservation. This is, and has always been one of the silliest arguments of which that group of Obama fellators has ever conceived. It simply wreaks of desperation because it requires ignorance regarding the concept of synonyms.

We only need turn to Justice Waite in "Minor v Happersett" to see that he explicitly equates the word "native" with "natural born citizen." (I notice you chose not to use the OTHER word Marshall quotes from Vattel.)

Justice Waite, 1875:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Of course your next response is likely gonna be, "That's dicta, so we should ignore it." Yeah, right.

b. Marshall had direct connections with several of the Constitutional framers.

That, AND he was a DELEGATE (Along with Bushrod Washington who ALSO cites Vattel extensively in The Venus) to Virginia's Ratifying convention. He worked with Madison to secure PASSAGE of the Constitution. He, more than most, OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE F*** HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

c. Even though The Venus case did not speak at all about the U.S. Constitution, it should be accepted that this represents Marshall's view that "natural born citizen" in Article II has the meaning given to "indigenes" in that translation.

There you go again, with your dishonest omission of the word "Natives" which we already know is a common synonym for the term "natural born citizen."

"There you go again..."

You also ignore the fact that the very first two words he quotes from Vattel are "The citizens". Yes, it requires a cosmic leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that the subsequent referral to "natives, or indigenes" has anything at all to do with Citizenship.

You know what I think? I think you are a dishonest f***ing liar, and you have no intention of being honest, and I think it's a waste of time to attempt any sort of civil discourse with you.

Holy leap of logic, Batman!! That you tout yourself as the paragon of logical thinking is gut-bustingly amusing.

Even your mockery doesn't rise to the level of clever. You didn't prove your point, despite your deliberate omissions, and therefore your goal post dance is just silly.

You seem to be just another hack that wants to believe he's clever, and hasn't the intellectual tools to realize how incompetent he is, but draws false courage from the fact that he's on the same side as most of the bovine herd.

Not going to bother with the rest.

I see you excel at nonsequitturs, too.

Since they seem to be the rule in your methodology, I figured "When in Rome..."

Actually it's an old logical game, and i'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

"Natural born Subject" is to "Natural Born Citizen" what "King" is to "President." Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

You dodged my point entirely. Massachusetts DID use the terms NBC and NBS interchangeably. And the Vermont Constitution DID term the residents "natural born subjects." Though neither state spoke of the resisents having a "king."

And there is a point to this? They did have a King, and then they didn't. Subsequent referral to "subject" was custom and habit. Thomas Jefferson himself, while writing the Declaration of Independence, wrote the word "Subject", then rubbed it out and wrote the word "Citizen" over the top of it. Once again, you have some sort of point?

You confuse two terms being used analogously and instead force an identicality that no one then ascribed to them. Thus, your lame attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails.

I merely demonstrated that the terms are analogous, not equivalent. Apparently the lesson got through for a change. The philosophical basis (and practice) of "Natural Born Subject" is VERY DIFFERENT than the philosophical basis of "Natural Born Citizen." Anyone with intellectual honesty would recognize that the founders would vehemenently reject the philosophical basis for being a "Subject" as opposed to being a citizen. How about you let Sir Michael Foster put you some fkn' knowledge?

Sir Michael Foster:

Sect. 1. With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local. The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation. Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects. Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

The Analogy between Subject and Citizen and King and President is a lot closer than feels comfortable to you. This principle of English Law is obviously NOT the "Natural Law" to which the Founders Refer. If they followed THAT version of "Natural Law", they could never be independent.

Given you ducked my points on Blackstone, and given your alternative quotes don't negate his point that "the chidrens of aliens born in England are, generally speaking, natural born subjects,"

I earlier wanted to speak on Blackstone, but didn't feel it was worth the time or space. I'll address it now. That Blackstone uses the qualifier "generally speaking" fits quite nicely with the quotes of English Law from Mathew Bacon and Giles Jacob.

Your little group of deludees will simply argue that Blackstone's "generally speaking" qualifier obviously refers to the children of Ambassadors and such, but looking elsewhere in English law, it becomes quite apparent that Blackstone's comment refers to Denizens, who are in a halfway state between full Citizen and Alien.

It further ignores the point that the stratified English Society might have REFERRED to Native born Alien Children as "Natural Born Subjects" (Meaning The King has a claim on their servitude) but in practice they treated them quite differently from those born to English Parents, and they most certainly DID NOT allow them to rule England.

I'll take that wager. Blackstone was on most everyone's desk who had anything to do with law in America.

For Civil and Criminal law. For International law? (The only body of law which actually deals with citizenship.) Not so much. As Civil and Criminal law takes up the vast bulk of any legal system, it is understandable that he would be an oft cited and useful reference. But to what Law Authority did John Marshall turn when the issue was International Law?

A Strange Likeness : Becoming Red and White in Eighteenth-Century North America

From Ziegler's "International law of John Marshall"

And his statement is crystal clear.

Perhaps not so much as you seem to think.

"NBC" and "NBS" were often used interchangeably in the pre-Framing period, and the terms on their face speak to a status via/at birth. Contrary to your STUPID insistence, it does not follow that they thereby had to insist on equivalency between "citizen" and "English subject" in every respect.

Au contraire, it is my insistence that they DID NOT insist on equivalency in every respect, or indeed, in any respect. The terms were analogous, but definitely not equivalent. They were two very different forms of Government, based on two very different principles of "natural law." The English version of it is incompatible with America's Independence, so it is axiomatic that THAT version was rejected by the founders.

Analgous. NOT identical in all respects. If you stop stumbling on that point of confusion, your argument may start to appear less inept than it does at present. Or you can continue to barricade yourself in Wonderland and keep regurgitatng arguments that make sense to few others but you.

One of us is certainly stumbling in wonderland, but I have no concern that it is I.

Done for the night. I have more important things to do in the morning.

When you make a point to quote umpteen court cases and other documents from the past relating to citizenship, the term is going to come up quite a lot. As you are so fond of pointing out though, all of that was orbiter dicta.

Here's a clue.

When you mention something in passing - one or two sentences - and it's not relevant to the outcome of the case, that's obiter dicta.

Obiter dicta is "a thing said in passing."

When you discuss it for 40 pages, and that discussion is core to the resolution of the case, that's not obiter dicta. That's NOT "a thing said in passing."

That's CORE REASONING, and core reasoning is just as much a precedent as the final pronouncement.

That's basic law.

At this point, I am wondering about you.

You sound like you believe what you're saying. Given what you're saying, that is very odd.

If you really believe the nonsense you're spouting, then it seems to me that something is definitely wrong with you. Whether it is physiological, or psychological, something is wrong there.

I am wondering: How old are you? I am also wondering whether you have had any traumatic head injuries in the past.