As notified, in order to meet operating costs and to expand our operations, ACTIVE is now requiring a modest $20.00 a month dues payment, or a one-time annual payment of $200.00.

Memberships are automatically tracked, and dues must be kept up to date in order for membership to be retained. Please use the same e-mail address you used when joining ACTIVE when paying your dues.

If you prefer to send your dues in by mail, make your check payable to CMSU, LLC, and mail it to ACTIVE 6501 E. Greenway Parkway #103-448 Scottsdale, AZ 85254.

$20.00 a month, recurring:

$20.00 One Time One Monh Payment

$200.00 One Time Annuaul Dues

Fox News:

The community organizing group ACORN mismanaged about $200,000 received from the Justice Department, which failed to track how the allocated money was used, according to a report by the department’s watchdog.

The news is the latest blow to a group whose public image has taken a beating in recent months after some of its employees were caught on video trying to help a couple posing as a prostitute and pimp evade tax laws.

“It’s ironic that the Justice Department provided ACORN affiliates with funding to help prevent crime when many of ACORN’s own employees have come under criticism for possible criminal conduct,” said Sen. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Smith called on the inspectors general of federal agencies that have provided millions to ACORN to initiate similar investigations.

“The Justice Department’s IG’s report may prove to be just the tip of an iceberg-sized fraud,” he said.

The report comes as ACORN is suing the federal government in attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding Congress voted to block after the undercover videos were released in September. The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.

ACORN claims it has been badly hurt by the congressional actions, and has had to fire workers and close some of its 1,200 branches around the country.

The DOJ report is unlikely to help.

The report targets five DOJ grants $200,000 and given to affiliates of ACORN since 2002. ACORN received an award of $20,000 this year; the ACORN Institute received two awards of DOJ grant funds — one for $13,000 in 2007 and another for $8,500 this year; the American Institute for Social Justice received an award of $20,000 in 2002; the New York Agency for Community Affairs, Inc., received a $140,000 grant in 2005.

It is not clear how much of the money was spent because the DOJ did not conduct any audits, financial reviews or site visits of the five grants awarded to the ACORN affiliates, according to the report.

The American Institute for Social Justice received its $20,000 as part of a $3.1 million DOJ grant to the National Training and Information Center. But the contract identified “Toledo ACORN” as receiving the $20,000. A 2008 audit revealed significant irregularities in the training center’s grant and serious flaws in the groups internal control system. That led to the group’s executive director pleading guilty to intentionally misapplying federal funds and was sentenced to five months in prison. Of the 36 sub-recipents of National Training and Information Center’s grant, Toledo ACORN was one of two not to respond to the department’s inspector general.

During the same period, the DOJ rejected five applications for grants by ACORN affiliates, the report said.

Times Online:

The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’ latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery with which he associates religious baggage.

With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the two children, their hair flying and with broad grins, seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.

Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of Britain’s most devout Christian families.

Their father, Brad Mason, is something of a celebrity within evangelical circles as the drummer for the popular Christian musician Noel Richards.

Mr Mason has been supplementing his income for years by giving photographs to agencies who sell them on to newspapers and advertising campaigns.

“It is quite funny because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through on their expressions.

Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, which Mr Mason and his family used to attend before they moved to Dorset, said: “How do you put laughter in a quote? I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.”

The British Humanist Association said that it did not matter whether the children in the posters were Christians. “That’s one of the points of our campaign,” the association’s education director, Andrew Copson, said.

“People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy or that no child should have any contact with religion or learn anything about it should take the time to read the adverts and think about their message rather than rely on their own assumptions.

“The message of the posters is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘Humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children and that young people have the right to choose for themselves in line with their developing capacities as they grow.”

The images of the children for the billboards were sourced from istockphoto.com, a well known stock photography website. Images are uploaded by photographers for sale to designers and are paid for by credits that are purchased in advance. The photographer receives a portion of each download fee.

Those who have welcomed the campaign include the magician and illusionist Derren Brown, the author Philip Pullman, and the musician and comedian Tim Minchin.

Pullman said: “It is absolutely right that we shouldn’t label children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.” AC Grayling, Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, said: “This is a significant and welcome campaign reminding us that children have their own minds and we can encourage them to think for themselves.”

Fox News:

More Americans continue to oppose the health care reform legislation than support it, according to a Fox News poll released Friday. In addition, half favor banning the use of federal funds for abortions.

By 51 percent to 35 percent, the public opposes the reform legislation being considered right now by Congress. Last month, a majority opposed the health care legislation by a similar 54-35 percent (October 13-14, 2009).

While a majority of Democrats favor the reforms (65 percent), some 17 percent are opposed and another 18 percent are unsure. Most Republicans (82 percent) and a majority of independents (61 percent) oppose the legislation.

Seniors aged 65 and over oppose to the legislation by 56-30 percent, while voters under age 30 are slightly more likely to be in favor of it (45-41 percent).

Click here to see the poll.

Few Americans — one in six (16 percent) — think their family would be better off under the reforms. The rest split evenly between thinking they would be worse off (37 percent) and saying the reforms would not make much of a difference to their family (37 percent).

Those living in lower-income households (income less than $30,000) are twice as likely as those living in higher-income households (income $100,000 and over) to think their family would be better off under the health care reforms — 28 percent and 14 percent respectively.

Even so, roughly equal numbers of all income groups — between 36-40 percent — think the reforms would not make a real difference to their family.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for Fox News from November 17 to November 18. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Last week an amendment was added to the House health care bill that bans the use of federal funds to provide abortions. Overall, Americans favor the amendment by 50-38 percent. Not surprisingly, a 66 percent majority of pro-life voters favor the amendment, while a 53-percent majority of pro-choice voters oppose it.

Likewise, a majority of Americans think if an individual receives federal aid to purchase private health insurance, they should not be able to buy a plan that covers abortion (52-39 percent).

Currently, 47 percent of Americans say they are more “pro-life” and 44 percent are “pro-choice.” Earlier this year it was 49 percent pro-life and 43 percent pro-choice (May 12-13, 2009). A larger number has typically identified as pro-choice than as pro-life in polling going back to 2004.

Click here for the raw data.

Real Clear Politics:

Attorney General Eric Holder adopted a tough guy pose when he announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court for the most heinous terror attack on Americans in history. “After eight years of delay,” he intoned, “those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice. It is past time to finally act.”

Where to begin? The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, “The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts.”

Those lawyers threw up hundreds of roadblocks. Military detentions and tribunals violated, they claimed, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Litigating all this has taken years.

At last clearing those obstacles, the government initiated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s military trial in Guantanamo in September 2008. In December, KSM pleaded guilty and asked to be executed.

But now, the attorney general puffs out his chest and declares that by trying KSM in an Article III federal court, he has chosen the forum “most likely to lead to a positive result.”

The mind reels.

This is an excruciatingly awful decision that no hanging judge talk of “the ultimate penalty” can perfume. What about the increased risk of terror attacks on New York during the trial? The city is “hardened” against attacks Holder assures us. Really? Like Fort Hood?

By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You’ll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you’ll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)

Attorney General Holder is keen to prove to a supposedly skeptical world that America lives up to its values (never mind that granting the full rights of citizens to enemy combatants is not part of our creed — nor anyone else’s). Yet he has also repeatedly asserted that a not-guilty verdict is unacceptable. “Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won.” Whoa. In the first place, it isn’t at all beyond imagination that the government could lose this case. KSM was waterboarded. No evidence thus obtained is admissible. A liberal judge who disliked the Bush administration might exclude other key evidence as well.

But Holder says he’ll be found guilty. Isn’t that a perversion of our jurisprudence? If a not-guilty verdict is impossible, then the trial is a sham. “Sentence first — verdict afterward” said the Red Queen.

Moreover, the Justice Department has assured Sen. Jon Kyl that “we will not release anyone into the United States if doing so would endanger our national security or the American people.” So in the event that KSM is acquitted, it’s the position of the Obama Justice Department that we would continue to hold him? How does that outcome burnish the reputation of our justice system?

And while we’re on the subject of not thinking things through, at a Senate hearing, Holder could not answer Sen. Lindsey Graham’s question about how we would deal with Osama bin Laden if we caught him tomorrow. Would he be Mirandized? Would we give him a lawyer? Isn’t that the precedent this decision sets?

There are dozens more reasons (including the intelligence bonanza this will confer on al-Qaida) that this decision is among the worst to emerge from a terrible presidency. What did they hope to achieve? Perhaps they have thought it through — at least as far as how the trial would unfold. With no defense (he has boasted about his mass murder), what will KSM do? He will put the CIA and the Bush administration on trial. Prepare for lurid accounts of his and others’ mistreatment.

Is that the nub? To satisfy the revenge fantasies of American leftists who have lusted to put the Bush administration on trial, the Obama administration is willing to sacrifice logic, justice, national security, and honor?

When KSM’s star turn in the courtroom goes viral on the Internet and inspires thousands of new jihadis, the Obamaites can console themselves that at least they stuck it to George W. Bush.

The Hill:

The leading Senate Democrat on military matters said the shooting rampage at Fort Hood could be labeled a terrorist attack.

“It sure looks like that,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in an interview on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program that will air Sunday.

“It probably could be labeled as a terrorist attack. I am not uncomfortable with thinking that’s the likely outcome here or the likely accurate description,” Levin added.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, has been charged by military authorities with 13 counts of premeditated murder in connection with the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5. More than 30 people were also injured when Hasan opened fire on the Army base.

Hasan, a Muslim, had communicated with a radical Islamic cleric before his attacks, which has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers.

Levin’s comments come after another key senator, Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), said on Thursday that the incident, “based on available evidence, was a terrorist attack.”

Lieberman is the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the only panel to hold a public hearing on the incident.

Levin said his panel has to receive a number of closed-door briefings from the military and other involved agencies before it holds a public hearing. Levin did not offer a timeline as to when the hearings will occur but said he is committed to holding them.

He also stressed that Congress has an important oversight role to play in regard to the shooting and identifying deficiencies within military processes and policies.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday refused to characterize Hasan’s shooting rampage as a “terrorist attack.”

“I’m just not going to go there,” Gates told reporters. “I am, first of all, as the senior person in the departmental chain of command, I am the least able to render opinions on these kinds of issues. I’m going to wait until the facts are in and we’ll let the military justice system take care of it.”

At the same time, he said he found it “disturbing” that Hasan had e-mail communications with Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam in Yemen reportedly linked to people who committed terrorist attacks.

Gates, however, refused to draw any conclusion about that information until he gathered all the pertinent facts.

Also on Thursday, Gates announced a broad Pentagon review in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting.

Former Army Secretary Togo West and former Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark will be in charge of the Pentagon’s review, Gates said. The 45-day review will look into possible gaps in identifying service members who could pose a threat to others. It will also: assess personnel, health and counseling programs; examine whether U.S. military bases have the necessary security; and look into whether the bases have the ability to respond to mass-casualty incidents.

The initial 45-day review will inform and shape “a department-wide follow-on examination of any systemic institutional shortcomings,” Gates said. That examination would be completed within four to six months, he noted.

Bloomberg:

Nov. 20 — Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for additional troops sent to Afghanistan and that NATO should provide half of the new soldiers.

An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.

That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.

Other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should bear responsibility for delivering half the additional troops needed to secure the conflict zone and train Afghan forces, Levin said. He didn’t predict how many troops President Barack Obama would add.

Levin also said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who has faced calls for his resignation from Republicans in Congress, should stay as long as he has Obama’s confidence. The six-term senator said the administration was right to move the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to federal court in New York from a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Troop Decision Near

On Afghanistan, Obama may decide within a few weeks whether to grant a request from the top commander in the field, General Stanley McChrystal, for 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban, which harbored al-Qaeda before being toppled in the invasion following the Sept. 11 attacks. The U.S. contributes about 70,000 of the 110,000 foreign forces fighting the Afghan war.

Levin, who has supported adding U.S. troops to the war mainly to train the Afghan army and police to take over, said he might back an increase closer to 40,000 under certain conditions. They include the proportion that would be used for training, a plan for preparing enough Afghan troops and a “major program” to provide equipment to their forces.

“There’s a lot of other things involved in showing resolve beside just a troop level,” Levin said. A key element to gain support will be “that whatever is announced, it be part of a NATO-Afghan initiative,” he said.

Conditions on Aid

The U.S. also should place conditions on aid that goes through Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government to ensure that he cooperates in fighting corruption, Levin said. Karzai won re-election by default when his main challenger dropped out of a planned runoff after the first balloting in August was marred by allegations of fraud.

Levin said that while he wanted to be “hopeful” that Karzai would take steps to weed out corruption, “I’m also skeptical.”

Levin commended Pakistan’s leaders for turning more of their attention from their conflict with India to the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters sheltering near the other border with Afghanistan. Pakistan’s army and its citizens have “taken some very severe losses” in fighting the militants, he said.

“They’ve got a way to go,” Levin said.

He also praised India, saying leaders had shown “restraint” in dealing with “fanatics” who crossed over the border from Pakistan.

On the economy, Levin said Geithner has been “very helpful” on finding ways to support automakers to preserve the industry.

Tighter Regulations

The broader financial crisis has demonstrated the need for tightening regulations on Wall Street, Levin said. He called the Obama administration’s recommendations “very significant.”

“I think the failure to move forward on those reforms in the Senate is the Republican resistance to some of those proposed reforms from the administration, not Democratic resistance,” Levin said.

He also praised proposals for changes from Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Dodd “has put forth a very significant reform of Wall Street,” Levin said. “It is long overdue.”

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

FOX News:

Lance Cpl. Josef Lopez still suffers from injuries he began experiencing in Iraq three years ago — injuries caused not by bombs or guns but by a military-administered smallpox vaccine he got before he left the United States.

The shot, which the military strongly encourages troops to get, triggered a rare bad reaction in the Marine from Missouri — leaving the then-20-year-old Lopez in a coma, paralyzed for several weeks and unable to breathe, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

Lopez hasn’t been the same since. He’s regained the ability to walk, but he limps. His loss of bladder control means he has to wear a urine bag. He takes about 15 pills a day to treat leg spasms and other conditions.

Now, Lopez and his family are upset because the government says he isn’t eligible for a special benefit of up to $100,000 for members of the military who have suffered traumatic injuries.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has covered the cost of his regular medical expenses, says that because his health problems were caused by the vaccine, he can’t collect the additional benefits that would provide funds to build him a wheelchair lift or help defray money lost while his mother has stopped working to tend for him.

“It’s for traumatic injury, not disease; not illness; not preventive medicine,” Stephen Wurtz, the deputy assistant director for insurance at the VA, told McClatchy Newspapers. “It has nothing to do with not believing these people deserve some compensation for their losses.”

Lopez and his mother, Barbara Lopez — who flew to her son’s aid in 2006 when the mysterious illness took over and the chance of recovery seemed grim — have appealed to Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri for help.

McCaskill has drafted a bill that would extend benefits to include those adversely affected by vaccines, KOMU.com reported.

“It would give him the same coverage, and frankly, I really think we need to take care of this young man and his family,” McCaskill said in an interview with KOMU TV. “He was willing to take care of us.”

The traumatic injury program has granted almost 6,700 claims — 63 percent of those received — and paid $394 million in compensation as of July 1, according to Wurtz. Lopez is fighting to be compensated, too.

“I could have easily died, or not been able to walk because of that,” Lopez told McClatchy Newspapers. “It destroyed my world. It was pretty traumatic to me.”

VA officials insist the agency is complying with what they interpret was the intent of Congress in creating the benefit legislation.

The department couldn’t say how many claims have been denied because of injuries or illnesses related to immunization shots — but Wurtz and others estimated it was probably a small number, McClatchy Newspapers reported.