Ten-year-old discovers 'new molecule' while tinkering with educational model
By Nina Golgowski
Last updated at 6:19 PM on 4th February 2012
A 10-year-old Missouri girl may be the youngest in history to discover a new molecule after a brief introduction on molecular formation by her middle school science teacher.
Clara Lazen of Kansas City was piecing together over-sized atoms from an educational model in her Border Star Montessori School classroom when she composed something her teacher had never seen before.
'I just saw that these go together more,' Clara told Fox4 while holding up her molecule's model. 'Like, they fit more together and they look better. And all the holes have to be filled in for it to be stable.'
Scroll down for video
Discovery: Ten-year-old Clara Lazen of Missouri may be the youngest in history to discover a new molecule after tinkering with an educational model in her middle school classroom
When she showed it to her teacher Ken Boehr, he in turn reached out to a friend and PhD chemistry professor at Humboldt State University in Arcata California for advice.
Sure enough, after completing a computer analysis on her formation, the University professor Dr Robert Zoellner turned back to the two to say it looked real, just previously unheard of.
More...
Riddle of the Russian scientists drilling into 'alien' Antarctic lake buried under ice for 20 million years who have been out of radio contact for six days
Yes you were right Charles: Plants really can communicate with one another
Today Clara's molecule is the highlight of a scientific publication in a major theoretical chemistry journal by Dr Zoellner which features her name as well as her teacher's as co-authors.
'I have never partnered with a middle school student, a 10 or 11 year old student. Never happened before,' Dr Zoellner told Fox4.
Astonished: Showing her science teacher for confirmation of her end product, he in turn called up a chemistry professor for confirmation after having never seen the kind of compilation designed
Synthesizing: After Clara's discovery with her teacher, shown beside her, a professor is working to get a major research university to begin experiments to see if it can be synthesized
What remains to be seen however are the tests behind her possible discovery.
Can it be synthesized by chemical engineers?
Dr Zoellner says he's working to capture a major research university to begin the experiments and find out.
Future profits: Excited about her possible discovery, Clare promised to split any of the molecule's sale profits with her science teacher
Being able to synthesize or physically create her molecule could lead to the possible creation of products like medicine, batteries and even, as Clara notes, explosives.
'And I was like, ‘Yeah, I can sell this to the military for money,’' Clara laughed.
She's already discussed splitting the money with Mr Boehr.
'Hopefully in Clara’s case and in her classmates’ cases, as well, this [discovery] will keep their interest in science going,' Dr Zoellner said.
January 24, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Draft Jeb Bush
A charismatic and accomplished governor can save the Republican party.
By Artur Davis
In the early months of the election year, a polarizing president with a lackluster approval rating bided his time as the opposition party unraveled. Its nominating fight dissolved into chaos as the establishment front-runner collapsed, and an insurgent with a talent for galvanizing his party’s base surged, despite persistent fears about his electoral appeal beyond the party’s hardcore. A protracted primary fight ensued, with the insurgent and the party’s resistant establishment eviscerating each other for months; by the time it ran its course, a president who seemed imminently beatable was ahead by double digits. The story ends with that same president winning by an historic margin over a party that rejected its recent past in favor of a dangerously uncertain future.
This is a recounting of the 1972 election season. If it has the feel of a premonition, it’s because Republicans look dangerously on the verge of repeating the demolition derby that so weakened Democrats that year. Mitt Romney may be a better-constructed front-runner than Ed Muskie, but he is still a flawed contender whose candidacy seems at odds with his party’s mood and whose own half-answers have made his wealth seem shadowy and amoral. Newt Gingrich may be a far better-known quantity than the hapless George McGovern, but he still seems, like McGovern, more suited to the task of revolution than political persuasion. Republicans are, and should be, very worried.
Enter the last dream date that Republicans may have at their disposal. His name is Jeb Bush, and this time, there is a feasibility around the idea that seemed unthinkable months ago.
To be sure, the Jeb scenario will need more instability in order to flourish. The likeliest path involves Gingrich’s momentum carrying him through Florida; the February races in Arizona and Michigan dividing between Romney and Gingrich; Romney rebounding in March in moderate-leaning midwestern states such as Illinois and Wisconsin; Gingrich winning easily in the Deep South on Super Tuesday and Texas in early April, with Romney proving equally strong in New York and the rest of the Atlantic coastline, while states like Ohio and Indiana fail to resolve the split.
Imagine that California’s ultimate showdown leaves Gingrich with the slightest of edges, but with Romney remaining viable and in possession of a broader geographic base, far more internal support from GOP leadership, and a substantial chunk of delegates. To stop Gingrich, Romney might have no practical choice but to offer to throw his support to Bush, whose popularity would also implode Gingrich’s slim plurality.
Not one bit of it is implausible. Arguably, a deadlock is an entirely realistic outcome in a race where Romney’s institutional edges are considerable, but his vulnerabilities and Gingrich’s raw campaign skills are more than enough to offset that advantage. It is also all too likely that the result of a protracted bout would be two candidates so bruised that neither remains competitive with Obama. If so, there will be a sense of panic, and it is not hard to conceive that Romney could come under intense pressure to sacrifice himself to avert a November catastrophe.
The less probable outcome is that Jeb Bush would abandon a year of disclaimers to accept a draft in a brokered convention. But there are two reasons he might. The first is that an Obama landslide would devastate conservatism enough that it might be irreparable for a generation. One doesn’t have to subscribe to Gingrich’s Manichean rhetoric to concede that an Obama sweep would, for the first time in 76 years, institute government-centered, redistributionist economics as the country’s central governing philosophy. It would be, after all, the agenda that Obama and congressional Democrats had campaigned on, in contrast to the deliberately muted, ideologically vague platforms that elected Carter, Clinton, and Obama in 2008; or the growth-oriented, business friendly liberalism that JFK and LBJ embodied.
Second, Bush would have a pathway to victory in November. His brand of reform-oriented conservatism might actually be his party’s only pathway: Unlike Romney, whose leadership of Massachusetts produced one signature achievement — a hodgepodge of a health-care law that he likely wishes he could take back — Bush’s legacy is an issue that Republicans ought to own but are ignoring, education reform. He also turned Florida into a national laboratory for controlling health-care costs and reining in medical tort liability, both soft spots in Obama’s record.
At the same time, Bush has revealed a capacity for coalition-building that has eluded Gingrich. He is a hero of the conservative base who has had remarkable electoral appeal to Jewish and Hispanic voters. He combines support for a modified version of the DREAM Act with backing stronger border security — a middle ground that is both tough-minded and assimilationist — and happens to be entering his fourth decade of marriage to a Hispanic woman. It goes without saying that Bush gives Republicans the best shot of removing Florida from the Democratic column, and winning states with a strong Latino presence such as Arizona and Colorado.
The fact is that Jeb Bush bent Florida, a famously interest-group-ridden state, in a rightward direction; that’s an accomplishment Romney can’t begin to claim vis-à-vis Massachusetts. Bush is not just an authentic movement conservative, but a groundbreaker on an array of issues that drive votes, such as accountability for teachers and reining in the costs of private health insurance. While his record has blemishes that Democrats would exploit, from his stint in the Eighties lobbying for southern-Florida business interests to his ill-timed tenure at Lehman Brothers in 2007, this Bush is an adept, articulate campaigner who is unlikely to be tied in knots defending his history. Also, the statute of limitations seems to have expired on the ugliest sentiments around the last Bush presidency.
Jeb Bush should measure his reluctance against the risks looming for his party and, potentially, his country. The fact is that his party could be staring at an unavoidable disaster unless, in the interests of saving it, its best candidate comes out of retirement.
— Artur Davis served four terms in Congress representing Alabama’s 7th district.
Will Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich run on the same ticket....God help us if they do and win!
Judge whacks Obama in eligibility case
'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'
by
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.
“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals,” Taitz said.
She told WND that it’s been 40 years since any court issued such a ruling concerning a president.
Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligiblity, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.
Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.
He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Also, required are medical, religious administrative and other records about Obama’s birth; passports, applications and related records; college and university applications; bar association applications and materials; details on the citizenship of Obama’s father and other documents.
Taitz had filed an opposition to the motion to quash, taking Obama directly to task over what many consider an important constitutional question – the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
“It is noteworthy, that [the quash request] comes on the heels of his extended 17 day Hawaiian vacation, which cost U.S. taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief, Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties and rounds of golf. Considering … it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records, which were not seen by anyone in the country yet,” she argued.
Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argues.
Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.
Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
 Barack Obama |
Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states.
The image released by the White House in April:
 Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House |
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Obama Administration “Rigging” US Census By Counting Illegal Aliens
The Barack Obama administration is quietly in the process of rigging use of the US Census of 2010, which deliberately counted millions of illegal aliens, for the purpose of restructuring the apportionment of the US House of Representatives. Accordingly, as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of one of the negatively affected states (Montana), Mr. Bob Fanning and I have joined with several others in becoming amici curiae in a pending federal lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana against the US Secretary of Commerce, et al., which was filed January, 13, 2012 in the United States Supreme Court.
What has happened is, the US Census Bureau erroneously claims that it “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’” Accordingly, they have counted millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 Census and are using those figures to apportion the US House of Representatives. If this egregious misinterpretation of the US Constitution is allowed to stand, five states (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) will lose representation in the US Congress to which they are lawfully entitled, while three states (California, Texas, and Florida) will be awarded additional representation in the US Congress to which they are not lawfully entitled. And, of course, this will also directly impact the makeup of the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President of the United States.
Of course, this manipulation of the 2010 US Census also impacts the election of the US President, as those states that are granted more seats in the US Congress are also granted more votes in the Electoral College as the Electoral College is composed of a “Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .” (Article. II. Section. I. Clause. 2. US Constitution). And, as everyone knows, under the US Constitution, it is the Electoral College that ultimately elects the President of the United States. Thus, the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, will be unjustly denied their lawful votes in the Electoral College, while California, Texas, and Florida, are being unjustly granted unlawful votes in the Electoral College. Would it not be extraordinary if the margin by which President Obama is re-elected in the Electoral College would be provided by the manipulation of the census data under his control? Again, this would be an outrage!
In essence, the Obama administration is rigging the US Census to steal a congressional seat from the State of Montana. This rigging will keep Montana from having a second congressional representative. If the illegals in California, Texas, and Florida are not included, then Montana will receive two congressional seats and four electoral votes. Under Obama’s rigging plan, Montana will continue to have only one congressional seat and three electoral votes.
Considering the major media and even most “conservative” talking heads have said virtually nothing about this monstrous misallocation of constitutional government is just the latest example of how truly out of touch the people who are entrusted to inform the American people really are.
The plaintiff in this case is the State of Louisiana, which has now been joined and supported by amici U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Policy Analysis Center, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key, Maryland Del. Don Dwyer, Washington Rep. Matt Shea, Wyoming Sen. Kit Jennings, as well as Candidate for Governor of Montana, Bob Fanning, and Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Montana, Chuck Baldwin.
Attorneys filing this brief before the US Supreme Court are Herbert W. Titus, William J. Olson, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan (of the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia) and Gary G. Kreep (of the U.S. Justice Foundation).
As citizens of the State of Montana, and as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana, Bob Fanning and I are outraged at this unconstitutional manipulation of the 2010 US Census, and the subsequent unconstitutional and unlawful misapportionment of the US House of Representatives. We are further outraged that our own governor, Brian Schweitzer (the incumbent Democrat governor who is term-limited out of office after the completion of his current term) has done nothing to prevent the people of the State of Montana from being denied the rightful seating of an additional US House member from the Montana delegation to Washington, D.C. He has not served as Montana’s watchman, to make certain that our State is being treated fairly by the Obama administration. Louisiana has been forced to go it alone, as the only State willing to bring this challenge. By not joining the lawsuit against the Obama administration, what Governor Schweitzer in essence is doing is allowing illegal aliens to deny the due representation of the citizens of Montana in Washington, D.C. This is an outrage!
It is a gross misinterpretation of the US Constitution to claim that the US Census is supposed to “count everyone living in this country.” Article. I. Section. I. Clause 3. as amended by Section. 2. of the 14th Amendment authorizes “a targeted decennial census of the ‘respective numbers’ of ‘the People’ of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found ‘living’ in the United States.” The term “the People” is a technical term used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to the polity, that is, the people who constituted the government and who are legal citizens of the nation. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally-authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required–the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“It is manifestly untrue that the decennial census ordained by the Constitution is to be taken without regard to a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ The decennial census is conducted for the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, the members of which are ‘chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.’ (Article. I. Section. 2. Clause. 1. US Constitution). The first sentence of the 14th Amendment establishes a symbiotic relationship between a person’s United States citizenship and that person’s State citizenship. Thus, whether a person is part of ‘the People’ of a State is largely, if not exclusively, dictated by a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ Any census that ignores that connection is fatally flawed.”
In the afore-mentioned lawsuit, we are asking the US Supreme Court to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.
I can tell you that the people who want to disassemble constitutional government in this country are hoping that no one notices what the Obama administration is doing to manipulate the 2010 US Census to unlawfully reconstruct the US House of Representatives and Electoral College. Well, I can tell you, Bob Fanning and I (along with the other amici curiae supporting Louisiana in this lawsuit) are not going to let that happen!
I will be holding a press conference to blow the whistle on what is taking place to deny the people of the State of Montana (along with the people of the states of Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio) their lawful representation in Washington, D.C. I am also using the influence and outreach of this column to alert the American people as to how the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.
It is more than interesting also that the “anointed” establishment neocon Republican Montana gubernatorial candidate, Rick Hill, has, himself, not even bothered to alert the people of Montana to this travesty. Why not? Rick is a career politician who once served in the US House of Representatives from Montana. One would think he would want to protect the people of the State of Montana from this outrage. But he has said nothing! Plus, have you heard anything about this from any of the “conservative” talking heads on FOX News? No you haven’t! Why not? Why is it left to this column to alert you to this gross violation of constitutional government?
Therefore, I unashamedly appeal to readers to help Bob and I carry this fight to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representative and the Electoral College to the US Supreme Court. Please go to our web site at:
http://www.fanning-baldwin.com
I also highly encourage readers to visit the web site of the law firm filing this brief. William J. Olson, Herbert Titus, et al., have been at the front lines in helping to defend constitutional government for longer than many of us have been alive. Bill Olson and Herb Titus have defended a sizeable number of patriot organizations and individuals against federal usurpation for decades. I don’t know of another law firm with the credentials and track record of fighting for constitutional government, Second Amendment rights, and individual liberty anywhere in the country than the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.
To learn more about this lawsuit and the Olson law firm, go to:
In the meantime, each of us should be using our individual and collective sphere of influence to trumpet this attempted travesty as loudly as possible! I especially encourage readers in the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio to demand of every elected public office holder in their respective states to use every means possible to defend the lawful rights of their states to proper representation in the US House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The people of America simply must not allow this flagrant manipulation of the 2010 US Census to take place! If the Obama administration gets by with this now, think how the states’ representation in Congress will be abused in the future.
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
© Chuck Baldwin
