Last week, after reviewing the Communist and terrorist organizers of the movement to remove US military bases from Puerto Rico, we asked, "In June of 2001, President George Bush issued his official response to the protests of Jesse Jackson and the terrorists [demanding evacuation of US bases in Puerto Rico]. What was his answer?"

As we mentioned, the anti-military protests date back to at least the 1970s, but every single US President has ignored them — understandably, since this leftist cause is a widely unpopular fringe movement. Even the Puerto Ricans, who get hundreds of millions of dollars worth of jobs each year from the bases, don't support it. Thus the naval bases have remained under Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, and Bill Clinton (hardly a friend of the US military!).

But the current President Bush decided to defy everyone — the growing Republican majority in Congress and throughout the nation, the rising tide of conservatism, and the voices of all leading US military officers. In June of 2001, Bush surprised everyone by giving the Marxists and terrorists exactly what they wanted by officially declaring the US would evacuate the Vieques testing facility within two years!

Nor did Bush lie; in May, 2003, over the protests of the US military, Bush did, in fact, close the Vieques base. Less than one year later, as if to rub salt in America's wound, Bush forced the US Navy to close another base — its last one in Puerto Rico, and one of the navy's largest in the world.

Bush's 2001 decision for appeasement came three months before the 9/11 terrorist attack on America; if the attack had happened first, it is unlikely Bush would have gotten away with it. As it was, he had to fight serious opposition from within his majority Republican Party when he did make the announcement, and he had to overcome plenty more to follow through two years later. Many are still scratching their heads trying to figure out why Bush is more radically disarming the US military than did Bill Clinton.

Special Announcement:

As of this issue, we are converting to a new format for this section. Readers have mentioned that some of the questions are difficult to answer, so instead we're going to give you the opportunity to express your opinion on current issues, and to compare the survey results with what the Torah has to say. So our weekly question will be followed by a set of choices. To submit your vote, click on your selected option; in the e-mail message that pops up, feel free to add any comments, and send the message. G-d willing, we'll publish the poll results the following week.

So now for this week's survey question:

Only one answer per e-mail address will be accepted; only e-mail addresses on our subscription list are eligible. Send your input by Sunday, July 24, 2005, 12pm PST.

This week's examples:
Rabbi Amitai Yemini, Chabad Israel Center, Los Angeles, CA; and
Rabbi Boruch Shlomo Cunin, head of Chabad of the West Coast (California & Nevada), Los Angeles, CA (Part 2)

Rabbi Amitai received our proclamation (calling on all Jews to participate in the campaign to defund the PLO) on March 4 at 10:56am, yet we have never heard back from him. We even re-contacted him by e-mail a few weeks ago, and still no answer. It is truly incredible to have a (presumed) Israeli uninterested in stopping PLO terrorism! This must be connected with the fact that he is based in California, where almost no rabbi has yet endorsed the proclamation. Why not? The explanation seems to lie with the head of the California Lubavitch organization, Rabbi Cunin, who is apparently waging a relentless campaign to block anyone from participating to save lives.

Last week, we mentioned a voice mail message left by Cunin in November 2001, furiously trying to stop a Noachide mitzvah campaign (for unspecified political, fundraising, or image reasons, we must suppose). But the story of Cunin's rebellion against the Rebbe's campaign doesn't stop there. As we explain on the page on our site, Noahide.com linking to the voice mail audio files, we responded to Cunin's ridiculous tirade with a press release warning people about his opposition. A few days later, on November 23, 2001, Cunin angrily left a second message on our voice mail, again trying to shake us off the track.

The second voice mail message (running time 0:55) strips away Cunin's self-promoted image as a lover of all fellow Jews, revealing instead a vindictive fundraiser who cares more for money than for the Jews who own it. Since our JAHG-USA volunteers (young, unmarried men without careers) were struggling almost without money, Cunin felt no compunctions about brazenly and viciously insulting them (and us). He can be heard calling us all manner of names: "crazy," "uncouth," illiterate (a paraphrase), and even "pieces of dirt" in Yiddish.

Since Cunin fears that any attempt to carry out a new mitzvah campaign could rock his boat (more accurately, his gravy train), he impulsively reacts to squelch it — demonstrating no fear of G-d, no real respect for the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and no concern for saving lives. Therefore the campaign to defund the PLO, which could (Heaven forfend!!!) be mildly controversial in some circles, naturally also draws his wrath.

As a reminder of our obligations to save lives, here's the next halacha from the proclamation:

Proclamation Rule No. 9
One who discourages his fellow Jews from saving lives, or who even fails to speak out to force them to take action, is considered one who causes the masses to sin; he loses his place in the World to Come (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuva 3:6), and is hindered — or even blocked altogether, if his terrible sin persists — from doing teshuvah (repentance and return) for his heinous act of betrayal (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuva 4:1 & 6:3).

[Additional comment: It is therefore obvious that when someone in Cunin's position uses his influence to turn other people away from their Torah obligations, and does so repeatedly, on issue after issue, year after year, he must eventually lose his free will and his ability to repent. We fear this has already happened to Cunin, who probably rationalizes everything we say to justify himself and imagine that our campaign is somehow wrong. He is now trapped in an evil of his own making, and is spiralling downward to utter self-destruction. Let us pray he somehow pulls out before it's too late.]

This week's example: Rabbi Eli Tenenbaum, Oholei Torah Yeshiva, Brooklyn, NY

A JAHG-USA volunteer approached Rabbi Tenenbaum in person on May 26, showing him the proclamation. Without hesitation, Rabbi Tenenbaum signed it on the spot, in the presence of several other rabbinical teachers at Oholei Torah, one of the two major yeshiva systems for Lubavitch boys in Brooklyn. He and the other teachers all agreed that the proclamation's statements are accurate, and that the Torah requires us all to get involved in defunding terrorists.

It's not surprising that the "refusenik" rabbis who don't sign also don't want to be caught saying "no." They have absolutely no answer against this widely-endorsed proclamation.

What do you think about Jewish leadership on PLO defunding? Send us your comments at [address withheld].

For a complete listing of all rabbis who have received our proclamation, and the up-to-date status of their responses, visit ATTAC Report at http://www.attacreport.com/plo/.

This week's edition of our sister site, ATTAC Report, presents: How the CDC co-opted the Religious Right to support a leftist Public Health agenda for AIDS; the Byzantine and Arab empires as the battleground between the Amalekis and the Jews, on our historical timeline; over 250 concentration camps and prisons in south-western Russia today, including the cities of Rostov and Volgograd.

"You wrote (in your comparison of Judaism vs. Christianity):
"New Testament never quotes G-d a single time, other than quotes from the 'Old Testament.'
"The Gospel has Jesus get baptized by his cousin John, and then the voice of G-d comes out from the cloud and says, 'This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." — CW.

Our response: The writer of this letter is clearly a Christian, citing a common objection heard by missionaries. We decided to quote it so as to publicize the proper answer.

The fact is that the "New Testament" passage does not identify the voice as coming from G-d. It merely says that "a voice" said those words. A person could easily argue that that is the voice of anyone, including the Satan, for example.

In reality, the "New Testament" avoids mentioning G-d because the early Nazarene/Christian sect was a Gnostic implant from Egypt, one of many secret societies whose leaders performed sorcery to impress the masses with their supposed "miraculous" powers. Consequently, the "New Testament" is filled with references to ancient pagan "mysteries," trinity-idolatry (as found in Hindu and Greek cults), and other vague, esoteric statements. This particular passage is akin to the Gnostic and Freemasonic literature that refers cryptically to a "grand architect," etc., without specifically mentioning G-d, His Torah, or His commandments.

And therefore the "New Testament" has also been heavily doctored, incorporating old pagan legends from India, Babylon, and Egypt. Thus its account of the "baptism" is altogether baseless, and the event probably never happened at all. But it is still interesting to note that the "New Testament" never once quotes G-d directly — unlike the Hebrew Scriptures, which quote Him literally thousands of times.

Send your letter to the editor to [address withheld].

Be sure to visit our Web site, Noahide.com.