Sunday, October 22, 2017

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Since “no one person can replace” Willow Creek Community Church founder Bill Hybels, the influential megachurch has named two people: its current executive pastor Heather Larson and teaching pastor Steve Carter.
Hybels announced on Saturday that the pair will succeed him as lead pastors when he steps down in October 2018.
The historic transition will make Willow Creek one of the largest churches in America with a woman in the lead pastor position, as well as the only major evangelical megachurch with male-female lead pastors who aren’t married. 
“When we saw this shaping up, we had to ask ourselves, ‘Can our congregation have a lead pastor that’s a woman?,’” said Hybels, speaking from Willow Creek’s central campus in South Barrington, Illinois, one of seven locations in the Chicago region that draw a collective total of 25,000 worshippers each weekend. “And because this is a deeply held value in our church, we said, ‘No problem.’”
Larson will be lead pastor, overseeing Willow Creek’s 400-person staff and $77 million budget, and Carter will be lead teaching pastor, continuing to preach most weeks.
The news comes amid Willow Creek’s six-year succession plan for the megachurch, which was founded in 1975 and has grown to rank among the 10 biggest in America. The 65-year-old pastor joins a wave of greying leaders who have opted to go public with their leadership transition, as Hybels first disclosed at the church’s 2012 Global Leadership Summit.
“We know that no one person can replace Bill,” Larson said in an interview on the Unseminary podcast last year. “That has led Willow to talk about moving to more of a team approach in leading the church in the future and what that might look like.”
Larson, 42, has worked at Willow Creek for 20 years and has served as Hybels’s No. 2 since she became executive pastor in 2013.

Image: Willow Creek
“There is clearly a growing tendency to see shared senior leadership in larger churches, to do ministry as a team,” said Warren Bird, who consults on megachurch succession and co-authored the book Next: Pastoral Succession that Works. “Many are experimenting with titles and roles like ‘directional leader’ and ‘chief visionary,’ and giving the No. 2 person a greater role. Willow is leading another wave of experimentation in role combinations.”
After an outside consultant recommended splitting the senior pastor duties, the two leaders were selected by Hybels and approved by the church’s elders.
“The shared leadership dynamic is a wise move for an organization with the size, scale, and history of Willow,” said Jenni Catron, a church leadership coach.
Around 5 percent of megachurches are led by a husband-wife co-pastor team (think Joel and Victoria Osteen at Lakewood, or Todd and Julie Mullins at Christ Fellowship Palm Beach Gardens), but none have an unmarried pair named as lead pastors, according to Bird.
Historically, “there have been a tiny number of female leaders in the top spot­—Aimee Semple McPherson being the most prominent, at one point leading the nation’s largest-attendance church,” he said, noting that for a time, widows Sharon Daugherty at Victory Tulsa, Betty Peebles at Jericho City of Praise, and Anne Gimenez at Rock Church International also had lead pastor roles.
“This is a significant move for not only Willow Creek Church, but also for the greater evangelical movement,” said Tara Beth Leach, who became the first female senior pastor at First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadena last year. “Bill Hybels and Willow Creek have made a move that no church of its size has done before, and I hope that moves like this will have a ripple effect across all of evangelicalism.”
The number of female pastors overall has tripled in the past 25 years, to about 9 percent of all Protestant pastors in the country, according to Barna’s 2017 State of Pastors report. But the numbers are just a fraction of that for women in lead pastor roles and at megachurches, since female pastors tend to lead smaller congregations. Only about a third of nondenominational churches welcome women into senior or preaching pastor roles.
Halee Gray Scott, a researcher focused on evangelical women in leadership, said Willow Creek’s announcement “trailblazes a path for the Western church.”
“It is a model of leadership that is deeply scriptural, built not on personality nor an individual’s personal charisma, but on partnership,” she said. “It is a model that reflects the fullness of humankind, both male and female.”
Since its early days, Willow Creek has not restricted women’s leadership, eventually basing its position on a study led by Gilbert Bilezikian, a longtime Wheaton College professor and Hybels’s mentor.
In a chapter in How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership, Hybels describes his desire to be proactive about adding women to leadership teams and being intentional about the women appointed to be paradigm-breakers as they step into significant roles.
Prior to being named executive pastor, Larson was involved in Willow Creek’s young adult ministry, global outreach, and compassion and justice work. She opened up about her leadership role in a 2015 interview with CT’s
Being a woman in this position is a much bigger deal outside of Willow than it is inside of Willow. Because it has been so much a part of the DNA of Willow, I get a lot of encouragement from women and men in the church who say they’re so excited to see how I’m leading and guiding the church.
But outside of Willow I get a lot of more shock. That has been good for me to keep in mind how different Willow is from a lot of other churches. I’ve never wanted to be on a soapbox about the role of women. I would rather build influence and lead where God has placed me, and let that speak for itself.
“She owns the values of this church all the way down to her toes,” said Hybels. “She has the pure Romans 12:8 gift of leadership.”
Though Larson was raised as a pastor’s kid, she said she didn’t expect to end up working for the church; instead she started her career working for the Red Cross. She has two daughters, ages 12 and 13, and is a graduate of Taylor University. 
“This is not something I ever planned for or expected, but it’s something that God planted in my heart,” she said. “I want my life to be about building the local church.”
Carter, 38, currently does the bulk of the preaching at Willow Creek, where he has been on staff since 2013. He was also involved in The Practice, the church’s experimental worship community led by Aaron Niequist, which concluded in June. (Carter and Niequist discussed their vision for the initiative with CT Pastors in 2014.)
Since he had only just arrived at Willow Creek when Hybels began his global search for his replacement, Carter initially didn’t put himself in the running. He teared up as Hybels announced his new role.
“He’s one of the most gifted, pure teachers that I’ve ever known,” said Hybels. “Better than that, he is coachable and has an insatiable desire to get better.”
Carter, a father of two, is a graduate of Hope International University. He previously served at Rock Harbor Church in California and Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan.
His book on evangelism, This Invitational Life, came out last year. He wrote:
Over the past ten years, I’ve seen a decrease in urgency when it comes to sharing one’s faith. I think a lot of it has to do with the way evangelism has been portrayed and done over the years. What I want to do is to try and reclaim the essence of the word.
My advice for those who want to live an invitational life is to show up with expectancy, with one ear attuned to heaven, so that when God whispers you’ll be ready to respond. God’s heartbeat is for humanity and He is inviting us to be ministers of reconciliation. He has given us a story of reconciliation and we are His ambassadors as if God was making his appeal through us. He wants to use you. When the spirit whispers, please say yes!
Carter also co-hosts a sports podcast from Relevant. “Because he’s played sports all his life, he understands the dynamics of a team,” said Hybels.
This weekend marks Willow Creek’s 42nd anniversary. Ahead of the news, Lynne Hybels wrote that her family was “genuinely excited about this announcement because we earnestly believe it will be a blessing and gift to this church that we love.”
Willow Creek pioneered tech-savvy and cultural-savvy ministry with its innovative programming, most notably its Global Leadership Summit. The annual event has drawn top names in business to address thousands of church leaders over the past 15 years, as well as pioneered a new approach to organizational leadership among evangelicals. Willow Creek spent a dozen years, from 1992 to 2004, as the largest church in America, according to Outreach magazine.
About a decade ago, the booming Chicago-area megachurch pivoted from what had been deemed a “seeker sensitive” approach to explicitly focus more on Christian growth and discipleship among its members.
Research previously featured in CT indicated that most prominent pastors leave the pulpit by 65 [see chart below, from CT September 2014]; Hybels will be 66 when he steps down next year, though he will remain involved in the Willow Creek Association and Global Leadership Summit.
“We’re going to fight through the funk of succession,” Larson assured the crowd on Saturday night. “We know it’s hard.”
 Willow Creek Promotes Egalitarianism 
by Announcing Co-Ed Pastors
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
On Saturday, October 14, 2017, Bill Hybels founder of Willow Creek Community Church announced that following his departure in October 2018 he will be replaced by co-ed pastors. Willow Creek has named its current executive pastrix Heather Larson and teaching pastor Steve Carter.

“When we saw this shaping up, we had to ask ourselves, ‘Can our congregation have a lead pastor that’s a woman? …. And because this is a deeply held value in our church, we said, ‘No problem.’ ”

When this troubling transition takes place, this will make Willow Creek one of the largest churches in America with a woman in lead pastrix position. It also should be pointed out that Willow Creek will be the only major “evangelical” megachurch with male-female lead pastors who are not married.
For years it has been clear that Willow Creek and Bill Hybels has had very little regard for Scripture or the biblical teaching in general or its proper context. This latest announcement by Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek Association proves only how depraved and filled with hate their hearts are towards God of the Bible. Hybels and Willow Creek are bent on promoting Egalitarianism and the tearing down of the biblical outline outlined in Scripture. Willow Creek is undoubtedly anti-Complementarian.  Scripture is clear in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9 that women are not to be in the position of pastor anywhere in the church.
 BILL HYBELS TO RETIRE AND BE REPLACED BY CO-ED PASTOR TEAM (Friday Church News Notes, October 27, 2017,, 866-295-4143) - 
Bill Hybels, founder of Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago, is retiring in October 2018, to be replaced by Heather Larson as “Lead Pastor” and Steve Carter as “Lead Teaching Pastor.” Willow Creek had female elders from its inception in the 1970s, but in 1997 all staff members were given one year to submit to this stance or step down. That year John Ortberg, one of Willow Creek’s “teaching elders,” wrote a paper saying that the Bible “teaches the full equality of men and women in status, giftedness, and opportunity for ministry” (“Femme Fatale: The Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church,” World magazine, March 29, 1997). This is open rebellion to the clear teaching of God’s Word. Willow Creek was one of the first “seeker sensitive” megachurches. Early on it advertised itself like this: “There is no hell-fire and brimstone here, no Bible-thumping, just positive witty messages.” Its main worship center in the community of Willow Creek west of Chicago cost $73 million and seats over 7,000. About 25,000 people attend weekend services at the church’s eight campuses.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Protestants around the world are preparing to celebrate Reformation Sunday in commemoration of the 500th Anniversary of protesting the Roman Catholic Church. Robert Jeffress, a Southern Baptist pastor and regular political pundit, has invited a Roman Catholic radio and television host to come and discuss, “his faith and perspective on what is happening in America.”
That a Southern Baptist Church would invite a Roman Catholic to share “his faith” is already revolting, but that it would be done in the season of Reformation is especially noxious.
Joining Jeffress will be the conservative firebrand, Sean Hannity, who has remained a constant fixture in conservative talk radio and at Fox News for many years. Hannity, as his listeners can tell you, is a devout Roman Catholic and not a Christian. That a Roman Catholic would be invited to share his faith at a Protestant church – especially as a part of Lord’s Day worship – is more revolting than engaging in an interfaith dialogue with a Muslim (which has caused about five months worth of Internet ire this year) held during a special event.
For Hannity, the event is part of a publicity tour designed to sell his new “Christian” movie. The website for First Baptist Church of Dallas says…
Be our guest for an exciting Sunday at First Baptist Dallas as Dr. Jeffress interviews Sean Hannity, host of “The Sean Hannity Show” on radio and “Hannity” on Fox News Channel, about his new Christian film, Let There Be Light, as well as his faith and perspective on what is happening in America. 
For those whose heads already want to explode, it gets better (or worse). Hannity’s “Christian” movie is about a man receiving a near-death Heaven Tourism experience (greeeaaat) and subsequently becoming a theist. Nevermind that Jeffress’ own denomination warned its membership about Heaven Tourism. The film stars Kevin Sorbo (Hercules) and Travis Tritt (the country singer), and Sean Hannity serves as the executive producer.
The Christian demographic has been a boon for marketers of cinema, and everyone seems to want in on it. It won’t be a sermon by Hannity, so much as a commercial trailer of his film.

After Hannity discusses his faith and shills his new “Christian” movie, Jeffress will then preach about the “moral and spiritual unraveling of our nation.” Ironically, Hannity and Jeffress have both been outspoken advocates for President Trump, in spite of the fact that Trump’s election is part of the evidence for the moral and spiritual unraveling of our nation. First time visitors to the church will receive a free copy of Jeffress’ new book, “America at the Crossroads.”
It seems that for Robert Jeffress and FBC Dallas, politics has become a religion, and Roman Catholicism shares the pew with Protestant evangelicalism.
 Dr. Robert Jeffress Gleefully Interviews Sean Hannity, Who Proclaims the False Gospel of the UNCHRISTIAN Catholic Church (10-22-17)
 Dr. Robert Jeffress Interviews Sean Hannity at First Baptist Dallas about his new "Christian" film, "Let there be Light," as well as his (Catholic) faith and perspective on our nation today.

Robert Jeffress Demands Apologies from Critics, Claims Hannity Interview Shared The Gospel

SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes

  "Recently, Robert Jeffress interviewed Roman Catholic political activist Sean Hannity during the Sunday Morning service at his church (Read more about this here). About this, Nebraska senator Ben Sasse (R) Tweeted about this, “Christians: Are we really this ignorant of the Scriptures?” He then quoted John 18:36 as saying, “Jesus answered, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world.'”"

"In response to this criticism, Jeffress shared an article and claimed, “You’ve got a Rep. senator who is criticizing what a pastor & his church are doing to share the gospel. Sen Sasse owes our church an apology.” However, when one looks through the interview, the Gospel is entirely absent from the interview."

For one thing, Jeffress blurs the lines between Christianity and Catholicism by saying, “Nobody goes to heaven in a group; we go one by one, based on our relationship to Christ.” However, he fails to recognize that the Bible says that attempting to gain salvation through the law (as the Roman Catholics do) then they are severed from Christ (Galatians 5:4).
Throughout the interview, instead of a preaching of the Gospel, the two engage in a dialogue about Hannity’s life, Jeffress claims that Catholics are Christians, and Hannity advertises his upcoming movie. In light of the lack of actual Gospel in the interview and the fact that Jeffress alleged that he was preaching the Gospel, one must question: What does Jeffress think the Gospel actually is?


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Tullian Tchividjian, the disgraced former pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church who had multiple affairs and has since remarried, affirmingly quoted Robert Capon as saying, “At its root, the Gospel is immoral, not moral, because it lets scoundrels in free for nothing.”

As you see in the above screenshot, the tweet was ‘liked’ by grotesque antinomian impastor, Nadia Bolz-Weber. We were, of course, warning you of the antinomian trajectory of Tullian Tchividjian as early as 2014.
The quotation itself is as inflammatory as it is blasphemous. The Gospel reveals the righteousness (moral perfection) of God by his justification of the ungodly through the full satisfaction of his wrathful judgment upon the sins of man, as imputed to Christ. All the debt of penitent sinners has been fully satisfied. Scoundrels are not let in “for free,” but by the payment of the blood of Jesus. In fact, Romans 1:17 says, “For in [the gospel], the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.'”
The context of Capon’s statement does not absolve it of blasphemy. The quotation was taken from Capon’s book, The Astonished Heart, and the very next sentence unveils its antinomian purpose.
“…once the church started setting up ethical behavior as a standard for membership, it quickly became a religion just like other religions. And that descent…was accelerated in this period by the fact that the church felt it had to take a stand against the religions that surrounded it in the Greco-Roman world…you cannot stigmatize the falsity of other religions without being fatally tempted to see yourself as the true religion – and thus ending up as just one more religion.” 
Capon’s tweeted statement above was prefaced by the statement, “Jesus was not an ethical teacher” (emphasis his). Of course, Christian orthodoxy begs to strongly disagree. If Jesus was not an ethical teacher, no one was.
Capon, who apparently Tullian has been reading and citing, was an Episcopal priest and famous antinomian. He also said, “It is not the role of the Church to tell people not to sin and to devise lists. The world perfectly knows what sin is.  The world knows what morality is.  The world knows what’s right.  Morality is the world’s cup of tea. What the world doesn’t know is forgiveness and that’s what the world needs to be told.
This, of course, is classical antinomianism. It is cheap, worthless grace. It is hyper-grace. It is a confusion and contradiction of propitiation and justification.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Donald Trump was today accused of peddling ‘fake news’ and stirring up hate after he wrongly linked the rise in crime in England and Wales to ‘Radical Islamic terror.'”
The actual purveyors of fake news, however, are the British MPs who are attacking Trump over this, and claiming he attributed the rise in crime to the spread of “Radical Islamic terror.”
In reality, Trump wrote: “Just out report: ‘United Kingdom crime rises 13% annually amid spread of Radical Islamic terror.’ Not good, we must keep America safe!”
He said that the crime rate was rising amid the spread of jihad terror — as crime increased, jihad terror was also increasing. That is manifestly true. But as always, British authorities are more concerned with demonizing foes of jihad terror than with actually doing anything about jihad terror.
“Outrage as Donald Trump blames ‘Radical Islamic terror’ for 13% jump in crime in England and Wales,” by Kate Ferguson and Richard Spillett, Mailonline, October 20, 2017 (thanks to Inexion):
Donald Trump was today accused of peddling ‘fake news’ and stirring up hate after he wrongly linked the rise in crime in England and Wales to ‘Radical Islamic terror’.
The US president sent a tweet referring to figures out yesterday showing crime increased by 13 per cent last year and warning ‘We must keep American safe’.
But British MPs tore into Mr Trump for talking ‘nonsense’ and said he is ‘spreading fear and xenophobia’ by wrongly blaming the rise on terrorism.
Others accused him of peddling ‘fake news’ and pointed out terrorism accounts for a ‘tiny’ proportion of crime in Britain and the rise is down to increases in offences such as stalking.
Jo Swinson, deputy leader of the Lib Dems, accused Mr Trump of being ‘misleading and spreading fear’ while Labour MP Stephen Doughty said he is ‘talking nonsense’.
Mr Trump wrote on Twitter: ‘Just out report: “United Kingdom crime rises 13% annually amid spread of Radical Islamic terror.” Not good, we must keep America safe!’
Home Office data released last month showed the number of people detained over suspected terrorism increased to 379 – the highest since records began.
But murders and attempted murders due to terrorism represent a tiny amount of the overall 5.2million crimes committed in Britain last year.
The bulk of crimes in Britain are frauds, thefts and public order offences which have no link to extremism.
Mr Doughty, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, told the Mail Online: ‘Donald Trump is talking nonsense about issues he doesn’t understand.’
He added: ‘Yet again it is not helpful for the President of the United States to comment with ignorance on security and policing maters in the UK.
‘While we have had some very tragic and horrific terror attacks in the last year, this represents a very small proportion of overall UK crime.
‘Donald Trump would be better paced looking at issues in his own country such as the huge number of deaths from gun violence which despite repeated atrocities from sandy hook to Las Vegas, the US government have failed to take action on.’…
 UK’s “anti-terror watchdog”: “Naive” returning ISIS jihadis should not be prosecuted
 UK police produce pro-Islam propaganda video featuring Hamas-linked group
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“No-one, anywhere is telling you to convert or respect or even like a certain religion! They are reminding you that committing abuse or assault on an other human being BASED on differing races or beliefs is a crime. That’s it!”
Great. Now: how common, really, is abuse or assault on innocent Muslims in the UK, apart from faked hate crimes, rude words, etc.? I expect it’s quite rare. And what are the Lincolnshire Police doing to tell Muslims in the UK to stop committing acts of jihad terror? Nothing, because not all Muslims commit acts of jihad terror? Well, not all non-Muslims attack innocent Muslims, either.
The group featured in the video, Al-Imdaad, has ties to Hamas.
The Lincolnshire Police are the very definition of Useful Idiots.

 “Police heavily criticised on social media after posting video on better understanding of British Muslims,” by James Peck, Lincolnshire Live, October 20, 2017:
A social media backlash has been launched at Lincolnshire Police after they posted a video on better understanding British Muslims.
The 12-minute long film touches on the history of Islam, its values, its followers’ journey to British shores and reminded people of hate crime laws.
But a barrage of negative online comments have been posted in response, with some accusing the police of producing a “propaganda” video and telling people what to think….
“Are we now not allowed to think our own thoughts!?” asked one. “We don’t require any indoctrination. Police should deal with law not religion.”
“How do Lincolnshire Police view the ordinary, decent, Christian people of this country?” wrote another.
“The answer, most unfortunately, is all too plain. Continue to alienate the rest of us, and you’ll be facing some pretty huge problems further down the line, won’t you?
“NOBODY should be getting special treatment and if you’re going to promote videos like this, then you need to do it for every faith and nationality in Britain. Looking forward very much to your video wishing us all a wonderful Christmas.”
Others wanted police to address response times and questioned the making of the video.
But social media users also sprung up in defence of it too.
“No-one, anywhere is telling you to convert or respect or even like a certain religion!” said one.
“They are reminding you that committing abuse or assault on an other human being BASED on differing races or beliefs is a crime. That’s it!”
Another wrote: “They’re not claiming it’s a priority, they’re simply using this week to raise awareness of hate crime which unfortunately is a growing issue at the moment whether it be against a person because of their religion or sexuality etc.”
The police also robustly defended the move.
Deputy Chief Constable Craig Naylor, speaking to the BBC, said: “I’m really disappointed by some of these responses.
“I’m very committed to reducing hate crime. During National Hate Crime Awareness Week one of the things we’re trying to do is show a different side to Islam and to understand that Muslims here are British and are entitled to the same respect and legislation and protection of the law that anyone else is.”
Mr Naylor added that the force will look into any online abuse aimed at the police and said that neither he nor the force regretted the video being made public.
 UK anti-terror chief: UK is “integrating,” not prosecuting, Islamic State returnees 


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In this new video, I expose the insidious intentions of the Congressional resolution condemning “hate groups,” and explains why President Trump shouldn’t have signed it.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Independent recently published an article entitled, “How the Teachings of Islam Could Help Us Prevent More Sexual Abuse Scandals,” by Qasim Rashid (an apologist for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community). Rashid argues that the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad would be a tremendous benefit to women in the West.
In a previous video, I explained why Qasim’s central thesis is correct, namely, because Islam makes it extremely difficult for women to prove that they’ve been abused (thus reducing the number of scandals). In this follow-up video, I go through Rashid’s claims, point by point, to see if he’s telling the truth.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This will only have the effect in the West of making the Palestinian Authority look more “moderate” by contrast, but in reality, the Palestinian Authority has never recognized Israel either, contrary to repeated claims, and shares Hamas’ goal of destroying it utterly, which would result in a new genocide of the Jews.

“Hamas chief: We won’t discuss recognizing Israel, only wiping it out,” by Dov Lieber, Times of Israel, October 19, 2017:
The Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip on Thursday dismissed US and Israeli demands that it lay down its arms and recognize the Jewish state, saying the terror organization is instead debating “when to wipe out Israel.”
The remarks came during a closed roundtable discussion between Yahya Sinwar and Gazan youth about the ongoing reconciliation negotiations with rival Palestinian faction Fatah, to which some media outlets were invited to attend.
“Over is the time Hamas spent discussing recognizing Israel. Now Hamas will discuss when we will wipe out Israel,” Sinwar said, according to the Hamas-linked news agency Shehab.
A Hamas spokesperson released a few official quotes from the meeting. The Sinwar comment about discussing “when we will wipe out Israel” was not included in the transcript, which featured the Hamas leader again rejecting disarmament and Israel recognition.
“No one in the universe can disarm us. On the contrary, we will continue to have the power to protect our citizens,” Sinwar said, according to the official statement. “No one has the ability to extract from us recognition of the occupation.”…
On Thursday, Sinwar doubled down on Hamas’s stance that it will not relinquish its armed forces.
“Disarming us is like Satan dreaming of heaven. No one can take away our weapons,” he said.
He also reportedly admitted that the talks could collapse. “There is a danger to the reconciliation project,” Sinwar was quoted as saying, though he did not elaborate.
Last week, the two rival Palestinian factions signed an agreement in Cairo to allow the PA to take full control of the Gaza, which it was kicked out of 10 years ago by Hamas in a violent conflict….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Hungary MP István Hollik has come out and stated fears 
that “George Soros would use his organisation, now the second largest 
political activist charity in the world, to influence Hungary’s 2018 
general election” and “remove Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party
 from power, tear down the border fence, and implement the “Soros Plan” 
to flood Europe with one million third-world migrants annually”
Viktor Orban has adamantly resisted the immigration policy of his European neighbors, despite threats of legal action by the EU over quotas. Like Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have also resisted the mass intake of migrants. These countries have not experienced the same jihad attacks, threats of attacks and mass sexual assaults that other European countries with wide open immigration policies have suffered. But that could possibly change with Soros’ interference:
Soros has a history of interfering in the democratic process of sovereign nations including spending $6 billion to destroy populism in Europe, as well as being accused of interfering in internal politics in Macedonia and Albania.
Should the tide end up shifting in Hungary, forcing it to accept mass migration (unvetted), its fate will resemble that of other European countries. According to a report released earlier in the week, in Britain alone, there are 23,000 jihadists reportedly at large, not 3,000 as previously reported. M15 Director General Andrew Parks warned that the “threat is multi-dimensional, evolving rapidly, and operating at a scale and pace we’ve not seen before …we’ve seen a dramatic upshift in the threat this year. It’s at the highest tempo I’ve seen in my 34-year career.” Parks also warned of a “similar picture across Europe and beyond where we have seen a steady drumbeat of attacks.”
István Hollik warns that “seeing what the Soros-funded organisations do, it is not an exaggeration to say that Soros organisations and the Soros plan itself are dangerous.”

“Hungary Fears ‘Soros Influence’ in Election After Open Borders Activist Injects $18bn into Foundation”, by Victoria Friedman, Breitbart, October 20 2017:
George Soros will use his organisation, now the second largest political activist charity in the world, to “influence” Hungary’s 2018 general election, a Hungarian member of parliament has claimed.
István Hollik MP fears that Soros would use his Open Society Foundations (OSF) to remove Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party from power, tear down the border fence, and implement the “Soros Plan” to flood Europe with one million third-world migrants annually, reports the Hungarian Times.
The politician, whose Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP) is in coalition with the conservative Fidesz, also said that the OSF-backed refugee human rights group Hungarian Helsinki Committee’s legal challenge to the government’s national consultation on the Soros Plan could be “the first step in the campaign”.
Hollik pointed out that Soros’s foundation, which recently received a cash injection after the Hungarian-American speculator transferred $18 billion into the NGO, has been a “generous and intensive” source of money for those “Soros organisations and politicians” who “regularly intervene in Hungarian public life and who try to put pressure on the Hungarian cabinet”, alleges Hollik.
He also accused figures within the European Union of “reporting” on Hungary to the Soros group, saying: “There are politicians in Brussels in their [OSF’s] pockets, through whom [the Soros organisation] is making threats.”
Hungary is under pressure from the EU over the country’s refusal to accept redistributed refugees, its higher education law, and legislation demanding transparency from foreign-funded organisations – the latter two directly affecting Soros interests.
He added that these organisations have been active since the beginning of the migrant crisis and after Orbán prevented further mass flows through his country and into the rest of Europe by building border fences, training more border guards, and detaining migrantswhilst their asylum claims are processed.
“Seeing what the Soros-funded organisations do, it is not an exaggeration to say that Soros organisations and the Soros plan itself are dangerous,” the Christian Democrat added.
Soros has a history of interfering in the democratic process of sovereign nations including spending $6 billion to destroy populism in Europe, as well as being accused of interfering in internal politics in Macedonia and Albania.
In the United States, Soros attempted to influence local district-attorney elections in 2016 (and again in 2017)……
 RED ALERT: Soros Group Openly Calls For A Ban On Conservative News In The United States 
 George Soros is now going for an all out push to destroy 
conservative and libertarian news outlets.
 Hungary Calls Soros’ Plan For Europe Satanic
 Hungary isn't going lie down and take what they call George Soros' 
'satanic plan' for Europe.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Federal judges Derrick Watson and Theodore Chuang are at it again: Apparently, neither of them can stand the idea of President Trump imposing restrictions on citizens from eight mostly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
On October 17, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii granted the state of Hawaii’s request to temporarily block the federal government from enforcing the Trump immigration policy that was supposed to take effect at midnight the next day.
Hawaii argued that the updated ban is a continuation of Trump’s “promise to exclude Muslims from the United States.”
Later that day, in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the latest version of the travel ban continues to have the same problems, and violates the same constitutional principles, as previous versions of the ban. Despite changes made by the administration, Chuang ruled that it still constituted a “Muslim ban” that violates the Constitution’s protections against religious discrimination.
Watson and Chuang issued rulings last March blocking sections of Trump’s March 6 executive order that banned travel to the United States by foreign nationals from six countries identified as being state sponsors of terrorism. Both judges were appointed by former president Barack Obama.
On July 13, Watson imposed his own interpretation of the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling that allowed the travel ban to go into effect, exempting only one category of foreigners from the travel ban, those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
The White House said on October 17 that Watson’s latest ruling was “dangerously flawed” and “undercuts the president’s efforts to keep the American people safe.”
“These restrictions are vital to ensuring that foreign nations comply with the minimum security standards required for the integrity of our immigration system and the security of our nation,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “We are therefore confident that the judiciary will ultimately uphold the president’s lawful and necessary action and swiftly restore its vital protections for the safety of the American people.”

Trump signed the travel ban that the two judges just blocked on September 24, just hours before his previous travel ban was set to expire. His proclamation limits the immigrant and non-immigrant entry into the United States from the eight countries. It continues the ban on immigration from five of the six countries in the previous ban: Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, and adds three new countries to the list: Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. The proclamation also drops one country previously named — Sudan. Furthermore, it relaxes restrictions for non-immigrant visitors from Somalia, as well as students and other exchange visitors from Iran.
USA Today reported that Watson, who issued a nationwide block against the travel ban, said the measure was “simultaneously overbroad and underinclusive” because it targets entire countries rather than dangerous individuals. Watson ruled the new ban fails to show that nationality alone makes a person a greater security risk to the United States.
“The categorical restrictions on entire populations of men, women and children, based upon nationality, are a poor fit for the issues regarding the sharing of ‘public-safety and terrorism-related information’ that the president identifies,” Watson wrote.
Watson’s ruling affects only the six majority-Muslim countries and does not include two other countries included in the ban, North Korea and Venezuela.
The USA Today report noted that Chuang, in his ruling a few hours after Watson’s, alleged that the president’s own words make clear to him that the focus is not on national security but on instituting a ban against Muslims. Chuang said the administration had “not shown that national security cannot be maintained without an unprecedented eight-country travel ban.”
However, Chuang’s ruling was more limited than Watson’s. It prohibits the administration from enforcing the ban against people who cannot prove they have a “bona fide” — or good faith — relationship with U.S. persons or entities, such as businesses or universities.
The Trump administration, in defending the ban, cited a section of federal law that allows a president to bar admission to “any aliens or of any class of alien” that he declares are “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Administration spokesmen said the latest version of the travel ban is a carefully constructed measure implemented only after a thorough review by the departments of Homeland Security, State, Defense, and Justice.
The two judges’ rulings quickly drew critical comments from the media. An October 19 opinion piece in The Hill likened the latest rulings to “a bad movie sequel.” The writer of the piece, Jonathan Turley, after summarizing what he regarded as a tiring round of rulings, appeals, new orders, and new rulings, said:
The new opinions in Hawaii and Maryland offer basically the same narrative while ignoring the new factual foundation. While both judges are respected jurists and reached good-faith conclusions, the opinions work too hard to ignore material changes that undermine the earlier holdings on religious and nationality discrimination….
Watson sees the executive order as still discriminating on the basis of nationality. Yet, it is impossible to specify inadequate entry procedures without designating the responsible and high risk countries. If that is discrimination based on nationality, most procedural rules addressing the failures of individual countries would seem to fail under the test, including orders from past presidents....
In Maryland, District Court Judge Theodore Chuang notably only enjoined the order as to the Muslim countries and only as to individuals without “a bona fide relationship with an individual or entity in the United States.” As such, the court actually allowed much of the order to be executed. Yet, Chuang held that travel ban 3.0 failed to “cure” the “religious animus” behind the earlier travel ban.
Chuang seems to place a heavy burden on the administration to “prove the negative,” or, in this case “prove you are not anti-Muslim.”
Another writer for National Review, David French, made his point in the headline of his article: “Once Again, Judges Defy the Law to Defy Trump.”
French wrote that the judges’ “job is to assess whether a policy is constitutional, not whether it’s prudent or wise.”
He continued by observing:
In the last week, two federal district-court judges in two different federal circuits have issued new injunctions against the Trump administration’s latest “travel ban.” Both injunctions are wrong, but one is dangerously wrong, representing not just an extraordinary act of judicial supremacy but also a cavalier disregard for the Supreme Court of the United States.
As to how the judges were disregarding the Supreme Court, French noted that in their previous rulings against Trump’s first two executive orders banning travel from the nations in question, “In essence, judges were abandoning common standing rules, rereading binding precedent, and sometimes even ignoring controlling authority to rule against Donald Trump.” Then the Supreme Court rectified this judicial disorder. French continued:
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court restored a degree of judicial order. It didn’t rule on the merits of the case, but its per curiam (unanimous) decision was instructive nonetheless….
Here’s the Supreme Court: The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.”
French’s well-reasoned article is too lengthy to do justice to here, but his conclusion is worth reading:
The latest executive order may or may not be the best policy choice (I’m generally more inclined to favor it than some of my colleagues), but in this instance the threat to the constitutional order comes not from Trump but from those who seek to check him. Judges should stay in their lane. It is not their job to correct policy blunders or to rescue us from policy failures. And it is certainly not their job to second-guess the commander-in-chief’s national security assessments. Trump’s third travel ban must stand. 

Related articles:
Supreme Court Dismisses One of Two Trump Travel Ban Cases
Trump Proclaims New Travel Ban, Adds Three New Countries, Including North Korea
Supreme Court Justice Stays Appeals Court Ruling Limiting Trump Travel Ban
Trump Travel Ban Unconstitutional? But Obama, Bush, Carter Travel Bans Constitutional?
Hawaii’s Judge Watson Loosens Trump Travel Ban
Supreme Court Allows Most of Trump Travel Ban to Proceed, Will Hear Case in Fall
Ninth Circuit Court Rules Against Travel Ban, but Trump Fires Back
Trump's DOJ Submitted “Watered Down” Version of His Travel Ban to Supreme Court
Trump Administration Asks SCOTUS to Rule on "Travel Ban"
9th Circuit Court Considers Appeal of Judge’s Order Against Trump Travel Ban
Federal Judge Upholds Trump Travel Ban Blocked by Other Courts
Federal Judges Again Block Trump Travel Ban From Nations With Terrorist Ties
Trump Signs New Immigration Executive Order
Judge Grants Stay to Bar Trump DHS From Deporting Aliens From Seven Nations of Concern
Trump's Order Suspending Refugee Program: Racism or Balanced National Security?
Trump Executive Order to Ban Nationals of “Countries of Particular Concern”


 Roger Stone joins Alex Jones to divulge details of his private conversation with President Trump about the American economy and the boom soon to come.


 North Korea Turns to Australia For Support Against US In Rare Letter
 Pyongyang claims Trump’s America First agenda damaging whole world
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
North Korea has sent a letter filled with Trump-bashing to the Australian Parliament, urging MPs to condemn Washington’s saber-rattling, while at the same time assuring them of its “highest consideration.”
The letter was penned by North Korea’s Foreign Affairs Committee and sent to Australia’s Indonesian embassy late September, but was received by Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop only last week.
The letter starts with the North Korean embassy extending compliments to the Australian Parliament and saying that it has dispatched similar letters to the lawmakers of other countries.

The thrust of the letter is fervent criticism of US President Donald Trump’s declared principle of putting America first “at the expense of the whole world.”
“The US brought to their knees those countries… with its nuclear stick and force, and then cooked up the illegal ‘sanctions resolution,’” the letter reads.
The committee goes on to note that North Korea “has emerged a fully-fledged nuclear power,” calling Trump’s threat to annihilate it a “big miscalculation and urging the MPs to reject  “heinous and reckless moves” that aim to “drive the world into a horrible nuclear disaster.”
Foreign Minister Bishop, who revealed the existence of the letter on Thursday, argued that this unheard-of way of communication means that Pyongyang has been driven into the corner by international sanctions.
“I think that this shows they are feeling desperate, feeling isolated, trying to demonize the US, trying to divide the international community,” Bishop said, noting that it is the first letter on record that any Australian foreign minister has received from the North Korean authorities.
Bishop praised Trump’s tough stance on North Korea, arguing that it made China review its policy towards its troubled neighbor, and more strictly enforce the sweeping economic sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council in response to North Korea’s missile and nuclear program.
Last week, North Korea warned Australia that “it will not be able to avoid a disaster” if it continues doing the bidding of the US by “imposing military, economic and diplomatic pressure” on Pyongyang. The damning message came on the heels of Bishop’s visit to a border village in South Korea on October 11, whence she called on the international community to step up pressure on North Korea.
Accusing Australia of “preparing a war on the Korean Peninsula,” Pyongyang stated that it betrays its own national interests by playing sidekick in “Trump’s selfish ‘America First’ Policy.”
Australia agreed to host 1,250 US Marines and 13 aircraft at Darwin in April, in the largest deployment of US forces in Australia since 2011.
Early October Australia announced it would fit its new warships with US-produced Aegis anti-missile defense systems to defend itself from long-range missiles in light of the growing threat from “rogue states.” The construction of the frigates is set for completion in 2020.