Close

Not a member yet? Register now and get started.

lock and key

Sign in to your account.

Account Login

Forgot your password?

The Real Judge Ponsor

January 16, 2014 Posted in News | 4 comments
The Real Judge Ponsor

This is Part II of a series exposing the injustice on Reverend Scott Lively from  Federal Judge Michael Ponsor. Click here to read Part I.

Judge Michael Ponsor should have recused himself from Reverend Lively's case for obvious conflicts of interests. Ponsor and his family are not only radical advocates of the homosexual movement but Ponsor also has relational and financial ties to the plaintiff. Below is a summary of Judge Ponsor's questionable ethics.

  • - Judge Michael Ponsor has been a known proponent of the radical homosexual agenda since early 90’s, before it was a large movement in American politics. After being appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, during his judicial ceremony, Ponsor told the assembled crowd, "We have a proud, vibrant gay and lesbian community" in Western Massachusetts.
  • - Ponsor has multiple homosexual family members, including his daughter and his former second wife and mother of his two children. During Ponsor’s first marriage, his wife was largely immersed in the pro-lesbian feminist groups.
  • - Ponsor has direct relations with the country of Uganda, were the plaintiff’s organization (SMUG) is from.  Ponsor spent a year in Kenya (Uganda's neighbor) as a young man. He speaks the Ugandian language, Swahili, and seems to be more invested in the Ugandan people then in the American citizens he is supposed to serve. During the hearing, Ponsor addressed the courtroom, saying "I'm pleased to adjudicate issues that affect the people of Uganda," and added that that it was "good to see the people whose interests are directly affected." Well, maybe he ought to move to Uganda!
  • - The plaintiff’s local counsel, Luke Ryan, was Ponsor’s law clerk for two years. Ryan is also an energetic supporter of Arise for Social Justice, a group that has actively demonstrated in front of Reverend Scott Lively’s downtown coffee house mission.
  • - Lastly, the plaintiff ‘s organization received the judge’s indirect donations. Ponsor and his wife have made donations to the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts. This foundation has donated money to the plaintiff’s legal organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights, for eight consecutive years, starting in 2005 to 2012.
 

NOT THE FIRST TIME

The homosexual movement has been largely successful in courtrooms, but not so much in the courtroom of public opinion. Whenever the issue of homosexual “marriage” has been brought before the people for a vote, they lose in virtually every state. It seems the only way for homosexuals to win is for activist judges to get involved. Many times these judges have compromising ties to the homosexual movement, including a secret life as a homosexual.  

After striking down the California amendment that defined marriages as between a man and woman, Judge Vaughn R. Walker said, “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Soon after he wrote this opinion, Walker came out as a homosexual. Let’s not be shocked that Judge Walker cannot comprehend the self-evident rational basis for prohibiting homosexual marriage, after all, he is a practicing homosexual.  

TAKE ACTION  

You can do something to protect Rev. Lively! Contact the Judiciary Committee today and urge that Congress reprimand Ponsor for his activist decision and protect the bench from further radical activism.

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

 

4 comments

  • Darkwolf says:

    Mr. Cass, you are a goof. No wonder Christianity is losing adherents daily, with slimebags like you speaking for it!!

  • Bobby says:

    We need to stop calling these people by all these polite names like “homosexual”, “lesbian” and so forth, and call them what they truly are: Deviants! Instead of saying Judge Walker came out as a homosexual, say he came out as a practicing sexual deviant. By letting these deviants control the language, we have given them a huge advantage. After all, what sounds worse to you, “A homosexual couple moved in next door”, or “Two deviant sex practitioners (or just ‘deviants’) moved in next door”? See how innocuous the first one sounds, making them sound harmless, likable even, when in point of fact the second statement is far more accurate, and highlights the dark nature of these people.

  • Mr Stuie says:

    Simply being gay/lesbian and having gay/lesbian friends and family are not enough to assume a person has a bias in favor of gays/lesbians.
    For instance; If you would care to follow the case in question the one you’re trying to sink, you would be aware that on several occasions during his trip to Uganda, Scott Lively went on record saying that he had friends and/or family who were gay/lesbian. Yet we hear nothing about his inherent pro-LGBT bias. Why?
    As much as the judge might decide to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, such an outcome is as guaranteed as is Scott Lively’s advocating in favor of gay rights at home and abroad.


Leave a comment