Still duped after all these years
We’ve heard a lot about the religious left’s appropriation—or misappropriation—of the language of “social justice.” What’s most troubling to me, though, has not been the abuse of this language by our religious left brothers and sisters—with whom we share a sincere bond in Christ—but by the extreme fringes of the left, namely, the atheistic communist left.
In research for my most recent book I found repeatedly—dating back a century and beginning with the Soviet Comintern and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)—communists exploiting social-justice language. They did so not because they believed in Jesus—quite the contrary—but to dupe believers in Jesus, specifically Christian progressives. As I dug into the Soviet Comintern archives on the CPUSA, it took little time to confirm what Herb Romerstein, America’s foremost expert on communism, had warned me about: “The religious left was the biggest suckers of them all.”
Here I’ll offer a quick snapshot of merely two examples, one from the 1940s and another from today.
First, there is the American Peace Mobilization, which Congress called “one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States,” “one of the most notorious and blatantly Communist fronts ever organized in this country,” and an “instrument of the Communist Party line.”
I have the actual declassified Soviet document (published on page 142 of my book Dupes) stating that the American Peace Mobilization was created “on the initiative of our Party in Chicago” in September 1940. Its goal was to keep America from fighting Adolf Hitler. Why? Because Hitler had a non-aggression pact with Joseph Stalin, and American communists were loyal Soviet patriots. The American Peace Mobilization angrily demanded no Lend-Lease to England, even as the Nazis savaged the Brits.
This was a pernicious position. Yet, the “peace” mobilization, which suddenly became pro-war the minute Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR, had more success with liberal Christians than any other group. If these Christians understood how badly they were used, they’d be on their knees.
Predictably, also taken for a ride was The New York Times, which described the American Peace Mobilization not as a communist front but as a “group of clergymen.” And why not? Of the signers to the group’s mass rally in New York in April 1941, a quarter of the names began with “Reverend.”
This exploitation of the religious left continues to this day. Consider probably the best-known communist radical on the public’s radar: Bill Ayers.
Ayers achieved infamy in the 1970s when he and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, formed the Weather Underground. Committed to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, Ayers and comrades were wanted for terrorist activities. Ultimately, they managed to evade prison time.
Where did Ayers end up? Columbia University accepted him into John Dewey’s Teachers College, where he earned a Ph.D. He became a tenured professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, training public-school teachers to be “change agents.” There, of course, Ayers met Barack Obama, with whom he served on several boards, and ended up being a contributor to Obama’s state Senate campaign.
Ayers has not abandoned his secular utopianism. And he knows how to package his wares to religious progressives—as “social justice.” He has done so with Michael Klonsky, onetime Maoist and even Stalinist, who likewise got his Ph.D. in education and trains teachers. Among Ayers’ works are: Teaching for Social Justice (Teachers College Press, Columbia), A Simple Justice: The Challenge of Small Schools (Teachers College Press, Columbia), and Handbook for Social Justice in Education (Routledge, 2008).
This “social justice” language has worked brilliantly with left-leaning Christians, including those at liberal Catholic and Protestant colleges. But most disturbing is Ayers’ presence in a college document titled “Preparing Teachers as Agents of Change: The Wheaton College Teacher Education Program Conceptual Framework.” In this document from what many consider to be the flagship university of the evangelical world, Ayers’ “social justice” work is cited multiple times. (Listen to a report on the Wheaton document that aired recently on the Sandy Rios radio show.)
In short, the atheistic communist left has been tapping these notions for decades, duping the religious left with breathtaking success.
Scripture exhorts us, incessantly, not to be deceived, misled, fooled—duped, if you will—especially by wolves in sheep’s clothing. Progressive Christians, sadly, continue to be guided astray again and again.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His latest book is Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top40 Comments to “Still duped after all these years”
If these Christians understood how badly they were used, they’d be on their knees.
I’m not sure this is true. Presumably they actually believed in peace for their own, internal, reasons. Discovering that “the movement” had been started by the Communists probably wouldn’t change that. They would certainly lose faith in the “American Peace Mobilization” as an organization, but that doesn’t mean they’d abandon the ideals it represented.
In the case of Ayers’ material being cited by Wheaton- if they agree with the principles embodied in that material then are Ayers’ motivations really relevant?
Suppose Hitler had written a really great book on how to paint landscapes. Also suppose that he wrote it as part of a diabolical plot to weaken his enemies by convincing all their citizens to become landscape painters. Should that stop me from using the book if I happen to want to learn how to paint landscapes?
Report comment to moderator
Buddy,
I would answer your question are Ayers’ motivations really relevant? in the affirmative. Agreeing with the principles means that they also agree with the end results (socialism) of applying those principles in this case.
The main point of the article is that the liberal (progressive) Christians have syncretized scripture with the anti-scriptural principles of Marx.
Report comment to moderator
Social justice is NOT in the Constitution. It’s not the purview of the government.
Report comment to moderator
This is the sort of ill-informed hysteria that gives evangelicals a bad name. It is simply difficult to locate all the problems with this rant.
First, the link to fellow-traveling. Really a side show, as there are few Stalins running around. The fact that Prof. Kengor can provide no contemporary analog to this behavior 70 years ago frankly appears more as again, one more guilt-by-association.
Second, the extension of guilt-by-association to the term “social justice”. Because some communist (and even that term should be used advisedly) uses the term “social justice” it automatically taints all use of the term? The difficulty here is that the Catholics pioneered this term in their social teachings in the early 20th C.
Third, the Wheaton document. As this is a 2004 document, what possibly drives the animus now? The idea that Bill Ayres is a leftist infectious agent seems rather odd, given that he is cited only three times, in a paper that has nearly five pages of citations. As the professor never engages that actual substance of the Wheaton paper, viz. that teachers who want to be agents of change should “create a safe and inviting learning environment” (3), or recognize “the inter-relatedness of educational opportunity and society at large” (4). Sadly, what seems to be going on is more ad hominem than anything else.
And biblically, Proverbs teaches “A hot-tempered man stirs up dissension, but a patient man calms a quarrel.”
Report comment to moderator
Social justice is just a soft and cozy name for class warfare & wealth redistribution.
Buddy; One other thought. Your use of Hitler and the example of landscape painting is not very appropriate. I would suggest an actual example of Hitler convincing the weak Christian pastors to adopt NAZI doctrine into the church. How the congregations gave up the truths of Christ and allowed the govt atrocities to progress in the name of NAZIism Vs Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for your scholarly patience and research, Mr. KENGOR. The more that scholars, journalists and others unearth about communism and its horrors and nefarious methods, the more the right is proven right and them more the leftists object defensively.
Why do leftists brissle and fuss when they are called Marxist or communist or socialist, but when those ideologies are justly criticized, they seem to be the ones getting defensive or trying to minimize the reality of the record against thos abusive “isms”?
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk – your draw a near-perfect analogy between what happened in Germany, and the political cooptation of liberal American churches by the secular/political Left. I speak frome experience having attended some of the co-opted churches (and gotten out, fortunately).
Report comment to moderator
The French Revolution also used high-minded idealistic rhetoric like “Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternite’” and then gave the French a “Reign of Terror” from the anti-Christian left! And it was as vicious as it was pernicious, pretentious and self-righteous.
Communism attracts academics with its shallow utopian rhetorical idealism and they COMPLETELY shut their eyes to its horrible record on the ground.
Leftist rhetoric is not even worth a grain of salt.
Report comment to moderator
Usurping language is a classic strategy to deceive the ignorant (usually those who think they are enlightened).
* “Social justice” masks the reality of communism.
* “Gay” masks the unhappy underbelly of homosexuality.
* “Choice” masks the reality of slaughtering babies.
* “Investment” masks unjust tax hikes.
* “Marriage equality” masks the dismantling of marriage itself.
* “Racism” is an accusation that masks a bankrupt policy or an inability to debate respectfully.
* “Hope and change” rhetorically masks an outright rejection of America as constituted.
And Lenin had his “useful idiots” to be sure.
Report comment to moderator
This is the sort of well-informed commentary that gives evangelicals a good name.
______________________
Here are some thoughful quotes:
* “Whenever you hear the term Social Justice, Dear Reader, as if justice itself were not enough as the end of law, en garde! Sacred rights are about to be compromised.” ~ Paul Greenberg, op-ed, June 23, 2010.
* “Theirs [today’s liberals and progressives] is the kind of justice that must always be modified — by race or class or some other special interest.” ~ Paul Greenberg, op-ed, June 23, 2010.
Report comment to moderator
Paranoia strikes deep
And into your thoughts it will creep…
Report comment to moderator
More misnomers:
* The phrase “health care” in the mouth of a politician only means “revenue control.”
* “Rent control” is a mind-bending misnomer that leads to higher rents than ever (New York City and San Francisco have strongest rent control laws in the nation and the highest average rents in the nation, by far).
* “Gun control” benefits lawless gunmen by giving them a huge advantage.
* Government “stimulus” spending burdens and boggs down the economy while enriching political cronies.
* Government “compassion” can inflict cruel consequences, like the widespread destruction of the black family.
________________
“Smooth talkers will always find mindless followers by twisting fancy words around fond feelings in misleading ways.” Thomas Sowell.
Report comment to moderator
I would answer your question are Ayers’ motivations really relevant? in the affirmative. Agreeing with the principles means that they also agree with the end results (socialism) of applying those principles in this case.
But that’s not what I understand Kengor’s point to be. His point seems to be that, while Wheaton really believes in the principles and end result of what Ayers has written, if they knew his hidden agenda and sordid past they would immediately reject anything he produces.
The main point of the article is that the liberal (progressive) Christians have syncretized scripture with the anti-scriptural principles of Marx.
Yeah. I don’t think Christian Social Justice = Classical Marxism. There are superficial similarities, but the devil’s in the details.
Social justice is NOT in the Constitution. It’s not the purview of the government.
Thomas Paine would likely disagree. Then there’s James Madison who said in his seventh state of the union address:
Emphasis mine. That’s the “Father of the Constitution” lobbying for a federally funded national university and federally funded and maintained roads and canals. Interesting to note is his mention that if constitutional authority is lacking it may be added via amendment. He seems to be saying, “I don’t care whether this is currently constitutional authorized; we should do it. If there’s no constitutional authority then we should add it in.”
The history of our government has been to do the former (implement whatever policy is deemed necessary) without doing the paperwork (actually passing an amendment). It remains true, though, that Madison apparently did not believe such things as federal transportation spending and federal education spending are anathema to the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
I just heard Dennis Prager say, “If you’re not naive, you’re not on the left.”
Report comment to moderator
* The phrase “health care” in the mouth of a politician only means “revenue control.”
Huh? When we combine your point of view on health care with Conor’s elimimination of all research, we get a pretty good body count. And “health care” sounds awfully “pro-life” to me.
“Rent control” is a mind-bending misnomer that leads to higher rents than ever (New York City and San Francisco have strongest rent control laws in the nation and the highest average rents in the nation, by far).
What’s a misnomer about it? It is exactly what it says it is. And like it or not, it does promote stability in some neighborhoods.
“Gun control” benefits lawless gunmen by giving them a huge advantage.
The body count in Arizona is getting pretty impressive these days. I’m sure that Jesus would have approved of everybody having easy access to assault weapons.
Government “stimulus” spending burdens and boggs down the economy while enriching political cronies.
So JM, how many of your parishioners work for the government or work on government funded projects? Did Jesus also say that they should be fired? BTW, would vouchers for religiously sponsored schools count as “stimulus”.
Government “compassion” can inflict cruel consequences, like the widespread destruction of the black family.
Rarely perhaps, but mostly it just helps people who really need it. Sort of like Christian compssion, but those of them like you really don’t give a flip about anything other than satisfying the urge to earn and keep as much money as possible. Beggaring one’s neighbor is every man’s god-given right. And there’s a really special spot in heaven for the super-rich.
Report comment to moderator
At least read the Wheaton paper. There are questions that could be raised, and from the internal discussion, have been raised about the social justice framework. But again, rather than read it through the fevered imagination of talk shows and the commentariat, a better approach will be to actually discuss the issue with Wheaton. Isn’t that what is commanded in Scripture?
Report comment to moderator
The phrase “social justice” carries an emotional charge in the ears of well-meaning people while having no specific meaning except whatever the speaker wants it to mean in a particular circumstance. It’s most common usage today has to do with government officials having the political power to pick society’s winners and losers. When politicians usurp from the people the enormous power to choose whom to reward and punish, that’s about as far from justice as we can possibly get. It is tyranny.
Report comment to moderator
True justice is when those who study diligently get the best grades and those who work smart and hard get the best pay. Wasting educational opportunities and behaving in self-destructive ways should not be rewarded simply because you know someone in power or because a politician is purchasing votes or because that politician can use you as a pawn in her pursuit of power or get your votes.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus respected a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; “For the laborer is worthy of his hire.” (Luke 10:7).
The apostle Paul touched on deep principles of social justice with clear and crisp sayings, such as those listed below:
* “[Work] with your hands… so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12).
* “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
* [Paul admonished the idle] “…to settle down and earn the bread they eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:12).
* “…[For] each one should carry his own load.” (Galatians 6:5).
* “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.” (2 Corinthians 9:6-11).
* “The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.” (2 Timothy 2:6).
An academic degree is not required to grasp these principles.
Report comment to moderator
True justice is when those who study diligently get the best grades and those who work smart and hard get the best pay.
Then capitalism is most assuredly not just. Some people are paid more because they’re naturally brilliant, naturally beautiful, naturally athletically gifted, are born into money, or simply happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDY wrote, “Then capitalism is most assuredly not just.”
Life is what is not fair, BUDDY, regardless of what “ism” you apply. But capitalism is the least unjust for the reasons I articulated at #17 and #18. With free market capitalism, a better measure of justice is at least possible because tyrants are less able intervene to engineer their selfish and power-hungry will.
Freedom is the point, and when there is a healthy measure of faith and virtue among the people, freedom yields more justice. Equality does NOT equal justice (as the passages I quoted will explain), not when it must be enforced against the rights and merits of a free people.
Report comment to moderator
“Capitalism” is no more or less “just” than education. Injustices can arise in the execution, but there’s nothing inherently unjust in capitalism (or education).
Report comment to moderator
Buddy,
But that’s not what I understand Kengor’s point to be. His point seems to be that, while Wheaton really believes in the principles and end result of what Ayers has written, if they knew his hidden agenda and sordid past they would immediately reject anything he produces.
I read Kengor’s comments that Ayer’s books reflect the same worldview of his past. ‘change agents’ and ’social justice’ within the titles of the works that Weaton uses reflects his concern. These are buzz words for Ayers past and present worldview of Marxism.
Yeah. I don’t think Christian Social Justice = Classical Marxism. There are superficial similarities, but the devil’s in the details.
“christian” social justice as espoused by the likes of Jim Wallace = Marxism in the form of liberation theology.
Then capitalism is most assuredly not just. Some people are paid more because they’re naturally brilliant, naturally beautiful, naturally athletically gifted, are born into money, or simply happen to be in the right place at the right time.
It is very important to define the term ‘justice.’ From a biblical perspective it means equal opportunity and legal (impartial) treatment to individuals regardless of wealth. It does not mean wealth redistribution to make material well being equal nor equal outcomes.
Unfettered private ownership and enterprise is a very just economic system within the framework of biblical justice:
1. Justice — The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due; practical conformity to the laws and to principles of rectitude in the dealings of men with each other; honesty; integrity in commerce or mutual intercourse. …justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man. Noah Webster, 1828
Report comment to moderator
Life is what is not fair, BUDDY, regardless of what “ism” you apply.
Good. So you agree capitalism is not “truly just” per your definition above.
‘
But capitalism is the least unjust for the reasons I articulated at #17 and #18.
I actually agree. Unlike you, however, I don’t think “safety nets” and redistributive policies preclude market capitalism.
@Macrutabaga: there’s nothing inherently unjust in capitalism
See Joel’s definition above.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly Buddy, nothing is inherently unjust. What is unjust about being in the right place at the right time, or being born into money, likewise what is unjust at not being born in said time? Don’t mangle justice into some sort of monotonous “fairness.”
RWHAWK, thanks for pointing out the parallels with what Hitler did with the mainline churches in Germany.
Report comment to moderator
correction, nothing in capitalism is inherently unjust.
Report comment to moderator
To me, the proof is and always has been in the pudding. The bottom line is that the left’s policies fail at completing their stated purpose. Look at statistics: Gun control? Increases gun crime and other violent offenses. The country is considerably more “enlightened” about the poor, yet the more programs and policies we have in place to help them, the more poor there seem to be. Does the average American have more or less opportunity today than he or she did 50 years ago? I would say less—a lot less. The more we try to make sure that we stamp out racism…well, the left’s policies are in place and have been for some time, but I would say things are worse, not better. Is the average black American better off today than they were 50-60 years ago? The rise of crime and gang violence in the black districts of most cities can be directly tied, timeline-wise, to the start of progressive policies, and to the progressive-led destabilization of the black family unit. Funny too, how the economy always seems to historically perform better the more free it is of progressive policies-Remember who the last president was who gave us a gas crisis? The education system is another glaring example–Steadily more progressive over the last 50 years, but kids these days are definitely not getting the same quality of education their parents and grandparents did. Yet despite the fact that on the whole, things are worse today than they were 50 years ago, we ignore the obvious question-Why was the average American better off back then? The answer, I think, is obvious. We should start looking at the way they did things back then, because obviously, it worked better than the crap we do now. You don’t keep a ship that is leaking going by bringing more pumps (money) aboard as new leaks show up, you drydock it and FIX it.
Report comment to moderator
I taught Philemon last Sunday. I ended the lesson with this observation. One thing missing from this. “Social Justice”. There is no concept of social justice in the Bible. Much about individual responsibility, and kings ruilin justly. But the concept of social justice is recent in history and very constrained in it’s locale. (What I meant by that is that most of the world doesn’t understand the concept.)
Someone back there observed that is just another way of redistributing money.
Report comment to moderator
I did see Joel’s definition, Buddyglass, but you posted the original comment. Apparently, I disagree with both of you.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDY
Life is what is not fair, BUDDY, regardless of what “ism” you apply.
Good. So you agree capitalism is not “truly just” per your definition above.
Capitalism is very just when carried out per God’s design and accounting for human nature. Life is not fair due to sin, not due to God’s design of an economic system. Capitalism is the only economic system that allows for justice in opportunity according to each individuals ability and God ordained rights, such as private property and enterprise. A limited civil govt is necessary per Romans 13:1-7 to carry out legal justice and protect God ordained rights due to the sinfulness of man.
Sinfulness of human nature will always get in the way and cause problems, including ‘fairness’ in life. Bad things happen to good people and some evil people do prosper and avoid legal justice.
Report comment to moderator
Like Harris I simply didn’t understand the point of the article nor its attempt at linkage.
Its fairly easy to find any leftist group doing linguistic gymnastics in the late 30s as Stalin’s policy towards Hitler went back and forth, (mainly for domestic purposes, foreign groups were expected to toe the line). That there were religious people among them is not surprising given the rate adherence in the US at the time. But what is not suggested or proven is their adherence to these groups in the name of social justice supposedly the author’s point. Are the clergymen being duped by communist exploitation of the term “social justice” — not proven. Perhaps peace at all costs and isolationism motivated them, it motivated the right wing in America at the time.
As for Ayers, Wheaton College and other Christian institutions; There is no indication that their knowledge of Ayers has led them to embrace education as a means to establish Ayers world view. They may have noted his theories as educators as agents and how they work but this doesn’t mean they want to apply the idea of change agents to enact a world according to Ayers.
Buddyglass’s has the right idea and so I’l modify it. An old business book called “Gheghis Khan Guide to Business” doesn’t advocate raping and pillaging through the accounting department but instead takes certain strategies and applies them peacefully. I can’t confirm but to give Wheaton the benefit of doubt it seems more reasonable to say Wheaton looked at the stragties suggested by Ayers and applied/modified them to fit their agenda.
This goes to the last point. Wheaton may even had used the words “social justice” and the Catholic has been using it for over a century. But this doesn’t imply they have the same definition as Ayers, Stalin, or even naive clergymen of the 1930s.
Report comment to moderator
JoelMarkWith free market capitalism, a better measure of justice is at least possible because tyrants are less able intervene to engineer their selfish and power-hungry will.
Silly me, I thought that’s what democracy was for. Truly free market capitalism enables commercial tyrants to ruin the life of anybody who has less money than they have. It inevitably leads to monopolies and vast disparities in wealth and power. It elevates the marketplace and commercial interests over the interests not just of the people, but of the the country itself.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Curious why you would give Wheaton the benefit of the doubt and conclude Kengor doesn’t know what he is talking about. What other information are you using to conclude Kengor doesn’t have a clue of the correlation in the above article?
Wheaton has adopted the Marxist (current PC definition of social justice) worldview in their education program. Not surprising with liberal, syncretized Christians adopting NCATE standards.
Report comment to moderator
Kengor has not supplied any proof that the definition of social justice is the same among groups that use it. He has also not supplied any proof that Wheaton College has adopted Ayer’s worldview when they cited his idea that an educator is an agent of change. Instead, Wheaton could be acknowledging his methodology and even adopting it for their own purposes. Guilt by association and especially linguistic association is rather weak argumentative skills.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Kengor has supplied the map for the supporting data you are requesting in his article via the links. This article is just a summary of his research. You haven’t provided any evidence that Kengor is derelict in his research to conclude that he is using only guilt by association. The better one truly understands worldviews the easier it is to discern that Kengor’s truth claims match reality.
Report comment to moderator
I think this whole conversation is a bit off.
The Social Justice movement in Christian circles has little to do with government and much to do with our hearts. It may carry the name “Social Justice,” but it’s more about us as individuals choosing to help those who need it, to care for our neighbors better. This is accomplished through charity, intentionally choosing to have less, living among the poor, etc. The majority of the movement is not concerned with legislation and safety nets – though they misguidedly support them, that’s not the point. The point is to live as Jesus did, and care for people’s physical needs while sharing the Gospel for their spiritual needs.
The point is to live like missionaries, and not as selfish people.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting conversation taking place here. Just want it to be known that as a graduate of Wheaton’s ed program I see an opportunity to embrace the concept of change agency “for Christ and his Kingdom” (as our motto states) free of the trappings of socialism/communism or atheistic humanism. You and I do work within certain frameworks constructed by the world around us, yet in light of being “in but not of” the world we surrender all these things, loaded phrases and all, to the Lordship of Christ. Having worked for years in an inner city school in order to improve the opportunity and social expectations of my students (rather than seeking the highest paycheck I could find), I hope that I have served the programs ideals as well as the mandate of my Lord to care for the poor and disadvantaged. Call it social justice, call it missionary work, but don’t call it being duped into promoting a communist agenda. A conservative Christian economics teacher doesn’t respond well to that type of labeling.
Report comment to moderator
“Then capitalism is most assuredly not just. Some people are paid more because they’re naturally brilliant, naturally beautiful, naturally athletically gifted, are born into money, or simply happen to be in the right place at the right time.”
Sure it is just. Why? Because everyone who has a natural gift, and everyone of us does, is able to use it freely. You can be a model, design airplanes, run faster…etc.
But you also have the freedom to not use those gifts. And there are just as many gifted who do not use their gifts as there are that do.
So to say the system is not just, is false. It is entirely a misuse of the question, as the system isn’t about determining who gets what, it’s about freely using what you’ve been given.
The opposing ideas of socialism, attempts to play that card though. It attempts to decide for you, what gifts you can or can not use.
To take away someone’s beauty because we are ugly is envy and greed. To take away someone’s wealth because we have none, is envy and greed.
Report comment to moderator
DMC,
What Christian circles are you referring to? Are there other Christian circles you would exclude due to being duped by the Marxist doctrines?
Report comment to moderator
MO,
Wheaton has refused to answer questions pertaining to what Kengor is pointing out. Why do you suppose they are not answering?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!