ALSO YOUTUBE, MYSPACE, FACEBOOK, AND MORE BLOGSPOT.COM SITES https://www.facebook.com/carriegerenscogginswebcast PROGRAM NOW ON WEBCAST AND YOUTUBE https://www.facebook.com/carriegerenscogginspoliticalnewsletter https://www.facebook.com/Chrisitancivilrights http://carriegerenscogginswebcast.blogspot.com WEBCAST LINKS BLOGSPOT. COM http://christiancivilrights.blogspot.com http://carriegerenscogginspoliticalnews.blogspot.com
END TIMES PROPHECY NEWS UPDATE, CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS POLITICAL NEWSLETTER webcast and youtube vide
CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS WEBCAST ON YOUTUBE PLAYLIST AND GOOGLE+
Friday, April 11, 2014
THE LIBERALS AND NEW AGERS IN THE US WANT AN ANTI CHRISTIAN HOLOCAUST!
The public in the U.S. has taken the "I don't care," attitude toward the Christians here in the U.S., the anti Christian hate from the liberal brainwashing, so that they could care less is we Christians have civil rights, and they would like to see us treated that way. The new age movement, gay activists, liberal Democrats are pushing hard to end the Christian existence.
THE NEW AGE, MARXIST, COMMUNIST, COLLECTIVIST, LEFTISTS, ALONG WITH SOME GAY ACTIVIST GROUPS, AND "PROGRESSIVES," FEEL THAT IF CHRISTIANS, AND THOSE GOING BY JUDAIC LAWS, THE CONSERVATIVE JEWISH CONGREGATIONS, DO NOT CONFORM TO THEIR LEFTIST AGENDA, THEN THEY SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF. THEY HAVE GONE SO FAR IN THIS ATTITUDE, WITH SUCH PRIDE, AS TO PRESUME THAT IF OUR VIEWS DISAGREE WITH THEIR VIEWS, THAT WERE NOT "EVOLVING." THE SAME LIES OF SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION TAUGHT BY THE NAZI NEW AGE MOVEMENT. THIS SAME FALSE DOCTRINE HAS INFILTRATED THE UNITED STATES!
Carrie Geren Scoggins
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST FEMINIST- THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE THE ISSUES/ THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ISLAM, "ILL SUE, ON A LEGAL NOTE, BY CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS," ADDED TO YOUTUBE PLAYLIST "CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS POLITICAL NEWSLETTER BIBLE PROPHECY TIMES EDITION UPDATES
http://youtu.be/jRATktKyT50
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY WITHDRAWS HONORARY DEGREE FROM WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST AYAAN HIRSI ALI CITING HER OPEN REBUKE OF ISLAM FOR VIOLATIONS OF WOMEN'S RIGHT AS VIOLATING THEIR CORE VALUES.
A UNIVERSITY RECEIVING STATE FUNDS CAN NOT CLAIM "CORE VALUES," A RELIGIOUS LEGAL CLAIM, AS IT WOULD ESTABLISH THE UNIVERSITY AS ADHERING TO THAT RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, WHICH WOULD VIOLATE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,
STATE ENDORSEMENT OF THAT RELIGION, IN THIS CASE THAT OF ISLAM. THIS UNIVERSITY CAN NOT IMPEDE ONE'S "LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE THE ISSUE," AS UPHELD BY THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT WHEN OVERTURNING THE HATE SPEECH LAWS. THE LEGAL RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS DEBATE ON ANY TOPIC.
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY WITHDRAWS HONORARY DEGREE FROM WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST AYAAN HIRSI ALI CITING HER OPEN REBUKE OF ISLAM FOR VIOLATIONS OF WOMEN'S RIGHT AS VIOLATING THEIR CORE VALUES.
AYAAN HIRSI ALI WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST,
DUE TO THE RELIGIOUS BIAS AGAINST HER VIEWPOINTS ON ISLAMIC COUNTRIES PRACTICE OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION, FORCED CHILD "MARRIAGES,"
AND OTHER ACTS OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST WOMEN IN ISLAMIC COMMUNITIES.
THE UNIVERSITY CLAIMS THAT AYAAN HIRSI ALI'S EXPOSING OF ISLAMIC PRACTICES VIOLATING WOMEN'S RIGHTS VIOLATED THEIR "CORE VALUES."
NO STATE ENTITY CAN CLAIM "CORE VALUES," AS IT IS A RELIGIOUS RULING, THE LEGAL RIGHT TO "ADHERE TO CORE VALUES,"
HOWEVER, NO STATE ENTITY, NOR ANY ENTITY TAKING STATE FUNDS, COULD CLAIM RELIGIOUS CORE VALUES, WITHOUT IT BEING STATE ENDORSEMENT OF THE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS CORE VALUES PERTAINING TO THAT TENET THEY ARE CLAIMING, WHICH VIOLATES SEP OF CHURCH AND STATE.
BY THE UNIVERSITY CLAIMING THAT SPEAKING AGAINST ISLAMIC BELIEFS VIOLATES THEIR "CORE VALUES," THEN THEY ARE IDENTIFYING THEIR UNIVERSITY AS ADHERING TO ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS TENETS. THIS IS STATE ENDORSEMENT OF ISLAM, STATE ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION, VIOLATING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, FOR ANY UNIVERSITY THAT ACCEPTS STATE FUNDS.
SINCE THE "HATE SPEECH," LAWS WERE OVERTURNED IN THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, UPHOLDING ONE'S "LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE," GIVING AYAAN HIRSI ALI THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ISLAM, OR DEBATE ANY TOPIC FROM ANY VIEWPOINT, WITHOUT CENSORSHIP.
THE HATE SPEECH LAWS WERE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENSORSHIP THAT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUES.
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, OR THOSE TAKING GOVERNMENT FUNDS, ARE EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO THIS FEDERAL SUPREME COURT RULING, WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT CHRISTIANS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE FROM THEIR VIEWPOINTS, BE IT THAT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, OR RELIGIOUS DEBATE OF OTHER RELIGIONS SUCH AS ISLAM.
OUR U.S. LAWS ARE NOT THAT OF THE E.U., NOR THE U.N., WHICH CENSOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH THROUGH HATE SPEECH LAWS, AND ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAWS, MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO FREELY DEBATE ISLAM. THE U.N. ANTI-BLASPHEMING LAWS MAKES SPEAKING AGAINST MUHAMMAD, ISLAM, OR THE KORAN, ILLEGAL.
THIS VIOLATES OUR LAWS IN THE US OF OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD IN OUR FEDERAL SUPREME COURT GIVING US THE "LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE," INCLUDING THAT OF ISLAM.
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE, FROM ANY PERSPECTIVE, STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD FROM ANY END OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, OR RELIGIOUS SPECTRUM, OR ANY SCHOOL OF THOUGHT.
DEMOCRAT LIBERALS WANT TO CENSOR THE VIEWPOINTS OPPOSING THEIRS, WHICH IS MARXISM, OR "WORKING FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD," WHERE A GOVERNMENT BUREAU DECIDES WHAT WE CAN, OR CAN NOT, SAY,
DUE TO WHAT THEY DEEM TO BE THE COLLECTIVE GOOD. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON OF WHOM SUPPORTED THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, WHERE WE DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR US, AND NOT THE STATE,
AND THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SUPERCEDE THAT OF THE COLLECTIVE GOOD, SO THAT WE DO NOT SUFFER TYRANNY, NOR CENSORSHIP.
IN THE UNITED STATES OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS PREVENT CENSORSHIP OF VIEWPOINTS WHICH SOME DEEM OFFENSIVE. IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE, ARGUE, DISAGREE, OR BE OFFENSIVE TO OTHERS.
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH CAN BE AN OFFENSIVE THING, BUT TOLERANCE OF OTHER PEOPLE VOICING THEIR VIEWPOINTS IS EXPECTED. TOLERANCE FOR THOSE DEBATING ISSUES FROM THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS IS ALSO EXPECTED, CHRISTIANS, AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEBATE ISLAM.
YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN UNTIL YOU SUPPORT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THOSE THAT YOU DESPISE!
MOZILLA VIOLATES RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES, 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CORE VALUES, CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS. "I'LL SUE, ON A LEGAL NOTE, BY CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS," ADDED TO YOUTUBE PLAYLIST "CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS POLITICAL NEWSLETTER BIBLE PROPHECY TIMES EDITION UPDATES"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBSqi1sKObE&index=2&list=PLRxsMy-rzJoXdQpluYCJGjTjIIHcmEymy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBSqi1sKObE&list=PLRxsMy-rzJoXdQpluYCJGjTjIIHcmEymy&feature=share
CEO OF MOZILLA BULLIED INTO RESIGNING AFTER HE DONATED TO AN ORGANIZATION SUPPORTING THE CHRISTIAN DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE:
MOZILLA VIOLATES 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AND FEDERAL SUPREME COURT RULING GIVING CHRISTIANS THE "LEGAL RIGHTS TO ADHERE TO CORE VALUES," CHRISTIANS DO NOT LOOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS WHILE ON THE JOB
BRENDAN EICH DONATED $1,000 DOLLARS TO A GROUP SUPPORTING THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, WHICH IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, OPPOSING PROPOSITION 8. THEN HE SUFFERED DISCRIMINATION WHEN THE COMPANY SENT OUT MESSAGES DEMONIZING HIM FOR HIS BELIEF IN ROMANS CHAP. 1, BULLYING HIM INTO RESIGNING.
THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT MAINTAINS THAT ONE DOES NOT LOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS WHEN THEY GO ONTO THEIR JOBS, NOR IN THEIR BUSINESSES, AND THE FED SUPREME COURT RULINGS OF OUR "LEGAL RIGHTS TO ADHERE TO CORE VALUES."
MOZILLA IS VIOLATED THEIR CEO'S CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS DEMONIZING THEIR EMPLOYEE FOR HIS CHRISTIAN TENETS OF FAITH, THAT OF ROMANS CHAP 1., AND THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BEING BETWEEN ONE MAN, AND ONE WOMAN. THE CEO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO "ADHERE TO CORE VALUES," AND IS SUPPORTED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
[ violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 ]
THE MESSAGE SENT OUT BY THE COMPANY THAT THE CEO BRENDAN EICH WORKED FOR ATTEMPTED TO DEMONIZE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS ANTI-GAY, FOR HIS BELIEFS IN THE BIBLE'S VIEWPOINT OF HOMOSEXUAILTY BEING SIN, AND HIS SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BEING LAW. THIS VIOLATES EICH'S CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS, AS HIS EMPLOYER CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIS TENET OF FAITH, THAT OF ROMANS CHAP 1., OR ANY BIBLICAL BELIEFS.
CHRISTIANS DO NOT LOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO "ADHERE TO CORE VALUES," SUCH AS ROMANS CHAPTER 1, OR ANY BIBLICAL BELIEF, WHILE ON THE JOB, OR IN THEIR BUSINESSES. THIS FEDERAL SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET, SUPPORTING CHRISTIAN CIVIL RIGHTS. THE "CORE VALUES" RULING SUPPORTED THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 ]
THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE "HATE SPEECH," LAWS THAT CENSORED BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES ON HOMOSEXAULITY, AND UPHELD THE CHRISTIAN'S "LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUE,"
SUPPORTING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS OF CHRISTIANS,
AND THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS TO ADHERE TO CORE VALUES OF ROMANS CHAP.1, AS THE HATE SPEECH LAWS VIOLATED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN ILLEGAL RELIGIOUS CENSORSHIP. WE DO NOT PREACH A CENSORED BIBLE, AND HAVE THE FULL LEGAL RIGHT TO PREACH, TEACH, ADHERE TO, AND SUPPORT, THE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINTS.
DEMOCRATS ONLY WANTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS FOR THOSE SUPPORTING THEIR VIEWS, BUT OUR LAWS SUPPORT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THOSE FROM BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL, AND RELIGIOUS, SPECTRUMS, WITHOUT CENSORSHIP!
IT IS FREEDOM STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIANS. IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO OPPOSE MAINSTREAM THOUGHT.THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DISAGREE, ARGUE, AND DEBATE, ISSUES, AND TO ADHERE TO BIBLICAL MORAL STANDARDS.
ONE'S EMPLOYER CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ONE'S RELIGIOUS TENETS OF FAITH. THEY CAN NOT HARASS THEIR EMPLOYEES OVER THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON ANY ISSUE, NOR DEMONIZE THEM TO OTHERS FOR SAID BELIEFS. THIS INCLUDES ROMANS CHAP. 1, WHICH REFERS TO HOMOSEXUALITY AS A SINFUL LIFESTYLE, THAT OF A REPROBATE MIND. RELIGION IS A "PROTECTED CLASS" UNDER THE LAW, AND IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES DUE TO RELIGIOUS FAITH.
EVEN IF OTHERS FIND THE EMPLOYEE'S CHRISTIAN FAITH OFFENSIVE, THEY CAN NOT CENSOR THE EMPLOYEE ON RELIGIOUS ISSUES, NOR CAN DISCRIMINATE.
THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT DID ***NOT*** FIND A FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, SO THOSE THAT OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ARE EXPECTED TO PRACTICE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
MOZILLA WAS EXPECTED TO BE TOLERANT OF THE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OF THEIR CEO, MR. EICH.
THERE IS NO FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, OUR FEDERAL SUPREME COURT DID NOT FIND A FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IS EXPECTED FROM THOSE THAT OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN VIEWS~
"YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN UNTIL YOU SUPPORT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THOSE THAT YOU DESPISE."
CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS YOUTUBE CHANNEL PLAYLISTS AND VIDEOS COVER TOPICS RANGING FROM:
Playlists And Videos Of Christian Bible Children's Videos, Cartoons / Claymation / Puppet videos, Christian guitar, Christian Band, Christian Music, Latin and Spanish Guitar, Christian Band Rejoice, Playlists of Bible Prophecy, End Time Events, Natural Disasters Book Of Revelations, Water Turned To Blood Rev 16:4, Political, Bible Videos, Favorites, Playlists With Clean Movies, Documentaries, How To Videos.prophecy
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)