It was hard to sit still and watch his smug bully’s face\r\n during the February 2 State of the Union speech. It was infuriating\r\n to watch the standing ovations of the surrounding Congress, or hear\r\n the fawning patter of the news media.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
In official traditions, the President tells Congress each year how\r\n the \"Union\" (meaning the United States) is doing. In\r\n reality, the State of the Union speech is a \"bully pulpit\"\r\n where presidents build public support for their next actions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
George W. Bush didn’t dare breathe a word of truth about the\r\n real<\/em> \"State of the Union.\" Bush couldn’t\r\n mention how most of the planet thinks he is a bloody cowboy who wants\r\n to rule like a new Roman emperor. He didn’t mention how the\r\n invasion of Iraq has turned into a brutal counterinsurgency. He\r\n didn’t discuss how bitterly the U.S. \"homeland\" is\r\n divided between \"two Americas\"—half of which hates\r\n the sight of him.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Could he mention how millions mutter about maybe moving to another\r\n country, or finding new and powerful ways to resist? No.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Bush didn’t even discuss the usual government balance sheet\r\n (for the obvious reason that the annual budget deficit is approaching\r\n half a trillion dollars,<\/em> while he demands $100 billion more\r\n to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan).<\/p>\r\n\r\n No, this government is on a faith-based<\/em> mission. Facts\r\n aren’t allowed to obscure the vision. Obstacles are just\r\n supposed to be bulldozed away, by brute force if necessary. And every\r\n policy speech of theirs has a chilling feel of Orwellian\r\n double-think.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Bush was puffed up during this speech by Iraq’s staged\r\n election-under-the-gun, which came to us distorted through the lens\r\n of an incredibly dishonest media. This election sham was offered as\r\n proof that (regardless of \"errors\") the U.S. is at least\r\n (somehow and supposedly) \"doing some good in Iraq.\" In the\r\n audience of Bush’s speech, his conservative supporters dipped\r\n their fingers in purple ink and waved them around (in supposed\r\n \"solidarity with Iraqi voters\").<\/p>\r\n\r\n How much more honest it would be if they just dipped their hands\r\n in Iraqi blood<\/em> and waved that<\/em> around while Bush\r\n ranted.<\/p>\r\n\r\n *****<\/p>\r\n\r\n Let’s look beneath the ugliness of it all and do\r\n some \"reconnaissance on the enemy.\" Let’s dissect\r\n what this speech shows about where this government is actually\r\n planning to go. Three things jump out:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n The President of the United States stood in front of Congress like\r\n an emperor announcing what other governments must do—Saudi\r\n Arabia must do this, Egypt must do that, Syria must heel. He openly\r\n encouraged the overthrow of Iran’s government and pledged\r\n support for that effort.<\/p>\r\n\r\n In Iraq, Bush had said he was invading because of WMDs—but\r\n there were no WMDs. He accused Iraq of \"links\" to\r\n \"terrorists\"—but there were no links. There was\r\n supposedly a threat to the U.S. \"homeland\"—but there\r\n was no such threat.<\/p>\r\n\r\n What very very short memories we are expected to have! Because\r\n now, in this speech, we are suddenly back to Square One<\/em>.\r\n Bush’s justification for threatening Iran? They may be\r\n trying<\/em> to get WMDs. They supposedly<\/em> back unnamed\r\n \"terrorists.\" (Déjà vu all over again!)<\/p>\r\n\r\n So here we are: Justifications for war blended into each other,\r\n until it is clear that, for the U.S. government, no justification is\r\n needed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n And the underlying, unstated logic behind this? The U.S. is making\r\n an aggressive grab for world domination, and everyone (especially the\r\n strategic Middle East countries and the potential rival powers of the\r\n European Union) is simply supposed to fall in line.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Bush’s speech was surrounded by more explicit and more\r\n ominous threats from his government. Vice President Cheney openly\r\n said that Israel might now launch targeted strikes on Iran. The new\r\n Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice refused to say there would not be\r\n war, explaining that Bush was not taking \"any option off the\r\n table.\" In other words, Iran (and other countries in the world)\r\n now live under a permanent, unrelenting threat of U.S. attack.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Let’s talk about values for a moment:<\/strong> All\r\n this naked imperialism is supposed to be considered normal. A simple\r\n and mindless equation is used: The U.S. government is for\r\n \"freedom\" and backed by \"god\"—and so\r\n whatever this government does, or wants, or demands is righteous.<\/p>\r\n\r\n And no one is supposed to think too deeply whether all this\r\n negates the rights of other nations, whether it disregards what their\r\n people really want, whether people ruled by the U.S. are ever really\r\n \"free,\" whether there really is a \"god\" backing\r\n colonial crusades, or whether what really is being imposed<\/em>\r\n isn’t just the sordid interests of U.S. capitalism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n The Last Shred of Security\r\n\r\n Bush has declared war on Social Security.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Some things need to be pointed out before we can get to the heart\r\n of what that means:<\/p>\r\n\r\n First, his targeting of Social Security is a sign of the\r\n extremism of the forces who now rule the U.S.\r\n\r\n Social Security was set up to guarantee a minimum survival pension\r\n for much of the population and to guarantee that disabled people and\r\n orphans aren’t simply abandoned.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Nearly 48 million people currently receive Social Security\r\n benefits (with average benefits of $11,000 a year). Without Social\r\n Security, it is estimated that half of older people would find\r\n themselves in desperate poverty—unable to cover the bare\r\n necessities of life. Though it is shamefully inadequate, Social\r\n Security is popular (and even beloved) because for many working\r\n people it is the only pension they have.<\/p>\r\n\r\n And so Social Security has been considered \"the third\r\n rail\" of U.S. politics—meaning that if a politician even\r\n lays a finger on it, it could be political death.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Bush (and his charging crew of right wingers) clearly dare to go\r\n there—with hatchets in their hands.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Second, Bush’s program has nothing to do with\r\n solving a \"crisis in Social Security.\"\r\n\r\n For decades, reactionary forces have deliberately\r\n \"under-funded\" all the social institutions and programs\r\n they wanted to destroy (including public education, public housing\r\n and Social Security). Then, as a program like that grows bankrupt and\r\n frustratingly inadequate—they say \"it isn’t\r\n working\" and demand its abolition through privatization.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Privatized education (like school vouchers, etc.) leads to\r\n formalizing a class-tiered and segregated educational system, filled\r\n with religious ignorance.<\/p>\r\n\r\n When horrific public housing gets torn down, hundreds of thousands\r\n are driven into homelessness.<\/p>\r\n\r\n When welfare was gutted, many more impoverished women were driven\r\n into prostitution. And whole communities are driven deeper into the\r\n \"faith-based\" embrace of fundamentalist churches.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Social Security is now grossly underfunded. And their solution?\r\n Bush’s plans don’t solve Social Security’s funding\r\n problems. He never discussed funding at all. His plan was for the\r\n \"partial privatization\" of the system—shifting some\r\n of the tax money of younger people into the stock market. And this is\r\n no solution at all: and will increase the insecurity of\r\n people’s lives and retirement.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Third, Bush’s approach to Social Security is to turn\r\n different sections of the people against each other, and against the\r\n remaining national social net.\r\n\r\n After working their lives away, people need to be cared\r\n for—and guaranteed dignified, meaningful, and secure lives\r\n even after they are too old or sick to work.<\/em> This has\r\n never<\/em> happened under this capitalist system, and even the\r\n flimsy, tattered social net that does<\/em> exist is now under\r\n frontal attack.<\/p>\r\n\r\n But as Social Security stumbles toward bankruptcy, the discussion\r\n of its problems are used to fuel a raw mood of dog-eat-dog. Bush\r\n argues that since old people are now living longer, they are an\r\n unfair burden on coming generations of young people. And so young\r\n people (supposedly) should look at their narrowest selfish\r\n interests—and demand that more of their<\/em> retirement\r\n taxes should go straight to themselves<\/em> (personally, as\r\n individuals).<\/p>\r\n\r\n In the most twisted argument seen in a loooooooong time, Bush\r\n actually says (in his current speaking tour) that Black people should\r\n support Social Security privatization because they die earlier than\r\n white people, and fewer Black men make it to retirement age. Is he\r\n arguing that efforts must quickly be made to guarantee decent health\r\n care for Black people so they don’t die needlessly? No! His\r\n argument is that Black people should help him dismantle Social\r\n Security, because (supposedly) fewer of them live to get\r\n it!<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n (Not only is his argument twisted, it is also a lie. For about 20\r\n percent of retired people, Social Security is the only income. But\r\n that number is 38 percent among Black and Hispanic elderly people.\r\n Attacking Social Security means attacking the most poor, and not\r\n surprisingly that includes many Black people.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n Fourth, Bush’s plan of partial privatization is only\r\n a first step.\r\n\r\n The goal here is to create the political conditions<\/em> for\r\n abolishing universal social protections. Once younger people invest\r\n part of their social security tax in the stock market, once the\r\n unified system is broken up, then (and this is openly stated in\r\n conservative think-tanks) the larger \"political consensus\"\r\n backing the social net is shattered. These are plans to\r\n ultimately end a universal, guaranteed national pension\r\n system!<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n Now, let’s look at the bigger picture. This destruction of\r\n Social Security is part of a larger move to actually rewrite the\r\n social contract of U.S. capitalism and to create a so-called\r\n \"ownership society.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n Let’s talk about values:<\/strong> The conservative\r\n Republican forces now in power want a society without a hint<\/em>\r\n of social solidarity or the \"entitlements\" of guaranteed\r\n mutual support. They want a society where fear and insecurity\r\n reinforce conformity and obedience, and where an individual’s\r\n only refuge is the traditional family and the traditional church.<\/p>\r\n\r\n They want a world that glorifies \"personal\r\n responsibility\"—which really means that the injustices of\r\n society can be blamed on supposed moral flaws (and\r\n \"irresponsibility\") of those who are suffering.<\/p>\r\n\r\n In short, they want a society where poverty comes without dignity\r\n or entitlements, and where wealth comes without guilt.<\/p>\r\n\r\n And let’s talk about the material underpinnings of\r\n those ugly values:<\/strong> They want<\/em> to guarantee that the\r\n United States has an ever-growing lower tier of desperate people who\r\n live in fear of falling. Their whole program is fundamentally rooted\r\n in capitalism and in the capitalist need<\/em> for more and more\r\n people willing to work for less and less—to guarantee the\r\n global competitiveness of their \"homeland.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n Rewriting the Basic Law\r\n\r\n Bush’s speech laid out a tight and specific battle plan for\r\n winning \"the culture wars\"—by using presidential\r\n powers to remake the legal system. Bush said he will appoint judges\r\n who don’t \"legislate from the bench,\" and he demanded\r\n that the Senate’s Republican majority have a free hand to\r\n approve his nominees. And he called for passing a constitutional\r\n amendment against gay marriage.<\/p>\r\n\r\n To understand what all this means, let’s list the major\r\n Supreme Court decisions that conservatives are talking about when\r\n they denounce \"judges legislating from the bench\":<\/p>\r\n\r\n Brown vs. Board of Education<\/em> (1954, which dismantled\r\n official state segregation of schools)<\/p>\r\n\r\n Griswald v. Connecticut<\/em> (1965, which said states could\r\n not make it illegal to sell birth control)<\/p>\r\n\r\n Loving v. Virginia<\/em> (1967, which overturned state laws\r\n forbidding interracial marriage)<\/p>\r\n\r\n Roe v. Wade<\/em> (1973, which made abortion legal across the\r\n U.S.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n Lawrence v. Texas<\/em> (2003, which legalized gay sexual acts\r\n anywhere in the U.S.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n Bush and his supporters uphold a legal doctrine called\r\n \"strict constructivism\"—which means that judges can\r\n only uphold those rights that are literally written into the\r\n Constitution. Large parts of the modern legal tradition, like the\r\n \"right to privacy\" and \"separation of church and\r\n state,\" are not literally written into the words of the\r\n Constitution.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Once again, let’s talk about values:<\/strong> What\r\n guides this whole program is the fundamentalist view that people are\r\n basically sinful, that their behavior and choices need to be confined\r\n and sharply limited. It is a view that says Right and Wrong are\r\n absolute and determined by fundamentalist Christian teachings on\r\n \"god\"—and therefore people should not<\/em> have\r\n wide \"choices\" about their own lives or about the direction\r\n of society itself.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Bush justified his plans by talking about \"building a culture\r\n of life\"—which is a code word for attacking women’s\r\n right to choose. And it is revealing that, in the same speech, he\r\n talked about how he plans to reform the federal death penalty\r\n system—which is a plan for getting the federal government\r\n back in the business of executing prisoners!<\/em> What a\r\n wonderful \"culture of life\"!<\/p>\r\n\r\n Let’s talk about the bigger picture:\r\n\r\n The right wing calls all this \"culture wars\"—and\r\n they really mean \"wars.\" At the end, they want a victory\r\n where their enemies are flattened and they have the power to remake\r\n the U.S. (and much of the world!).<\/p>\r\n\r\n Specifically they want to impose<\/em> a reactionary and\r\n traditional view of patriarchy on family and sexuality, including\r\n especially on women and teenagers. They want to end abortion and much\r\n more: they want to sharply restrict birth control, sex information,\r\n tolerance of gay sexuality, and social experimentation. They want\r\n \"cultural diversity\" to disappear under a tidal wave of\r\n conformity and censorship. Many of Bush’s Christian fascist\r\n hard- core supporters openly see their goals in theocratic\r\n terms—they want the harsh morality and rules of their religion\r\n to be the law-of-the-land.<\/p>\r\n\r\n It is a vision of a world where everyone \"knows their\r\n place\" and where the power of society will slap you back\r\n into your place<\/em> if you forget.<\/p>\r\n\r\n They think this is their moment. And they are looking for openings\r\n to make big advances. Imagine if there is another incident like 9\/11.\r\n How will people like Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza\r\n Rice exploit it? And what will the U.S. and the world look like if\r\n they have their way? From the commanding heights, in the White House,\r\n in Congress, in the military and in the Supreme Court—they are\r\n like the gangster who warns \"We can do this the hard way, or we\r\n can do this the easy way.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n An Unacceptable Future\r\n\r\n After the State of the Union speech, it stood out how unopposed\r\n Bush’s program currently is within the power structure.<\/p>\r\n\r\n The Democratic leadership, of course, got their usual \"moment\r\n of response.\" Who was the first speaker for the Democrats?\r\n Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, a conservative Mormon and supporter\r\n of the criminalization of abortion. This social conservative now\r\n heads the Democrats in the Senate!<\/p>\r\n\r\n With him was Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, who\r\n argued against \"slipping out the back door of Iraq\" and\r\n demanded that Bush accelerate the creation of an Iraqi puppet\r\n army.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Who can imagine either of them leading any real opposition to the\r\n program Bush was laying out?<\/p>\r\n\r\n And yet, if you really listen to Bush’s speech and\r\n afterwords piece together what it means—it is clear. They are\r\n serious about all these changes, and the people need to be very, very\r\n serious too. They have their filthy values, and we need to fight for\r\n our values: internationalism, bold social experimentation, liberating\r\n social change, equality and choice for women, real eye-opening\r\n education, scientific critical thinking, and a whole culture of\r\n mutual support among people.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Clearly millions<\/em> of people would be horrified to live in\r\n the world Bush envisions. And literally millions would help fight\r\n it—if they understood deeply what is at stake, and if they saw\r\n a way to actually resist, and if they got a living sense of a\r\n liberated new society that is worth fighting for.<\/p>\r\n\r\n It was hard to sit still and watch his smug bully’s face\r\n during the February 2 State of the Union speech. It was infuriating\r\n to watch the standing ovations of the surrounding Congress, or hear\r\n the fawning patter of the news media.<\/p>\r\n\r\n In official traditions, the President tells Congress each year how\r\n the "Union" (meaning the United States) is doing. In\r\n reality, the State of the Union speech is a "bully pulpit"\r\n where presidents build public support for their next actions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n George W. Bush didn’t dare breathe a word of truth about the\r\n real<\/em> "State of the Union." Bush couldn’t\r\n mention how most of the planet thinks he is a bloody cowboy who wants\r\n to rule like a new Roman emperor. He didn’t mention how the\r\n invasion of Iraq has turned into a brutal counterinsurgency. He\r\n didn’t discuss how bitterly the U.S. "homeland" is\r\n divided between "two Americas"—half of which hates\r\n the sight of him.<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\n","numcomment":1,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2005\/02\/122559.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":122570,"heading":"SOMETHING NOT RIGHT...","article":"A former worker at TBN threatened to disclose an alleged 1996 homosexual encounter.\r\n\r\n\r\nTelevangelist Paul Crouch, founder of the world's largest Christian broadcasting network, has waged a fierce legal battle to prevent a former employee from publicizing allegations that he and Crouch had a sexual encounter eight years ago.\r\n\r\nCrouch, 70, is the president of Trinity Broadcasting Network, based in Orange County, whose Christian programming reaches millions of viewers around the world via satellite, cable and broadcast stations.\r\n\r\nThe source of the allegations against him is Enoch Lonnie Ford, who met Crouch at a TBN-affiliated drug treatment center in 1991 and later went to work for the ministry.\r\n\r\nAfter Ford threatened to sue TBN in 1998, claiming that he had been unjustly fired, Crouch reached a $425,000 settlement with him. In return, Ford agreed, among other things, not to discuss his claim about a sexual encounter with the TV preacher.\r\n\r\nBut in the last year, Ford has threatened to go public with his story, prompting a flurry of legal maneuvers \u2014 conducted in closed court hearings, sealed pleadings and private arbitration.\r\n\r\nIn court papers, Crouch has denied the allegations, and ministry officials have described Ford \u2014 who has a history of drug problems and has served time for a sex offense \u2014 as a liar and an extortionist.\r\n\r\nAt stake are the public image of one of the world's most successful televangelists and, potentially, the fortunes of the broadcasting empire that Crouch and his wife, Jan, built over the last 31 years.\r\n\r\nTBN and Crouch went on the legal offensive after they learned that Ford had written a book manuscript that included an account of the alleged sexual encounter.\r\n\r\nIn a dramatic flourish, Ford had appeared at a TBN broadcast studio in Costa Mesa, minutes before the start of a "Praise-a-thon" fundraiser, and, without comment, handed Crouch a copy of the manuscript\r\n\r\nFord's lawyer later told ministry officials that they could keep the work out of public view by buying the rights. After some discussion, he suggested that $10 million might be a reasonable price.\r\n\r\nWhile negotiations continued, Crouch sued to enforce the 1998 secrecy agreement and obtained a restraining order barring Ford from seeking a publisher for his book.\r\n\r\nOrange County Superior Court Judge John M. Watson also granted Crouch's request to conduct the case in secret, sealing all documents and expunging any mention of the suit from public court records.\r\n\r\nBoth sides eventually agreed to let a private arbitrator decide the matter. In June, the arbitrator ruled that Ford could not publish the manuscript without violating the 1998 settlement \u2014 an act that could subject him to monetary damages.\r\n\r\nThis account of the controversy is drawn from interviews with friends of Ford's, unsealed court records, correspondence among TBN lawyers and a copy of the arbitrator's confidential ruling. The arbitrator's decision contains details about the 1998 settlement and Ford's manuscript \u2014 both of which are under seal.\r\n\r\nRecords and interviews show that even as they battled to keep Ford's story from leaking, TBN lawyers worried that details would eventually come out.\r\n\r\n"I am absolutely amazed that Lonnie hasn't gone to Penthouse or Dianne [sic] Sawyer with his manuscript, notwithstanding the [judge's] injunction," TBN attorney Dennis G. Brewer Sr. wrote in a March letter to the network's other lawyers.\r\n\r\nIn a subsequent letter, in May, Brewer mentioned the anguish that Ford's accusations had caused Crouch's youngest son, Matt, when he learned of them in 1998.\r\n\r\nBrewer wrote that the younger Crouch had told his then-law partner, David Middlebrook: "I am devastated; I am confronted with having to face the fact that my father is a homosexual."\r\n\r\nMiddlebrook and Matt Crouch have denied that there was such a conversation.\r\n\r\n\r\nMillions of viewers\r\n\r\n\r\nPaul and Jan Crouch started TBN in 1973, using a rented studio in Santa Ana. Over the next three decades, they built a worldwide broadcasting network by buying TV stations and negotiating deals with cable systems and satellite companies.\r\n\r\nToday, TBN's 24-hour-a-day menu of sermons, faith healing, inspirational movies and other Christian fare reaches millions of viewers from Spain to the Solomon Islands.\r\n\r\nPaul Crouch is the driving entrepreneurial force behind the network and one of its most popular on-air personalities. He and Jan, his wife of 46 years, have cultivated a folksy on-screen image as a devoted couple.\r\n\r\nTBN officials have long been concerned about how Ford's allegations could affect the network, which relies heavily on donations from viewers. Officials said they were particularly worried about possible comparisons to the scandal that brought down televangelist Jim Bakker in 1987.\r\n\r\nBakker resigned from his PTL Ministries in 1987 after admitting to paying a secretary $265,000 in ministry funds to be silent about an earlier affair. Bakker later went to prison for bilking donors.\r\n\r\nTBN officials said they were careful not to pay Ford with ministry funds in 1998. They declined to say whether the money came from an insurer, Crouch personally or some other source.\r\n\r\nFord, 41, said he could not discuss his manuscript or his allegations against Crouch but he did provide basic facts about his background and his time at TBN.\r\n\r\nFord, whose father and grandfather were ministers, grew up in Fairfax County, Va., moved to California in 1989 and worked in a string of jobs that included jewelry salesman, produce clerk and gas station attendant. For years, he struggled to kick a cocaine habit.\r\n\r\nIn 1991, he checked into a Christian drug treatment program in Colleyville, Texas, on a TBN-owned ranch. It was there that Ford met Crouch. In 1992 the network hired him to work on a phone bank in Orange County. Ford said he also ran errands for the Crouches and drove Paul Crouch to appointments.\r\n\r\nFord repeatedly ran into trouble with the law, but TBN stood behind him. In 1994, he pleaded no contest in San Bernardino County to having sex with a 17-year-old boy and served six months in jail, according to court records. TBN took him back after his release.\r\n\r\nIn 1995, he pleaded guilty in Orange County to possession of cocaine and served about 30 days in County Jail. Again, TBN took him back.\r\n\r\n\r\nLake Arrowhead cabin\r\n\r\n\r\nThe alleged sexual encounter between Ford and Crouch occurred in the fall of 1996, according to Sandi Mahlow, a Tustin housewife who met Ford in a Fullerton church 10 years ago and became a close friend.\r\n\r\nMahlow, 50, who helped Ford write his manuscript, said he broke down in tears after returning from a weekend spent alone with Crouch at a TBN-owned cabin near Lake Arrowhead. Mahlow said Ford told her that he and Crouch had engaged in sexual acts.\r\n\r\n"Lonnie had a lot of bad traits; one thing he isn't, and that's a liar," Mahlow said. She said she helped Ford with his manuscript for no pay, as a favor to a friend, and has no financial interest in the book.\r\n\r\nAfter the alleged encounter, Ford continued to work at TBN. For a time, he lived rent-free in an apartment at the network's Tustin headquarters, according to Mahlow and another friend of Ford's, Diane Benson, who met him at an Anaheim church 14 years ago.\r\n\r\nA third friend of Ford's said that in October 1996, about the time of the alleged Arrowhead encounter, ministry officials gave her a $12,000 check to pay back money Ford owed her. The woman spoke on condition that she not be named, saying she feared retaliation.\r\n\r\nTBN officials acknowledged that the ministry paid some of Ford's debts. They said the network commonly extends such generosity to employees in financial trouble.\r\n\r\nWithin weeks of the Arrowhead trip, Ford tested positive for drug use and was arrested for violating terms of his probation. While Ford awaited sentencing, the ministry again came to his support, urging the judge not to impose more prison time.\r\n\r\nFord "has continuously shown a very positive attitude regarding whatever we have asked him to do," wrote Ruth M. Brown, Paul Crouch's sister and TBN's director of personnel. "He carried out his duties cheerfully and always tries to do more than asked."\r\n\r\nThe judge sent Ford to the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, a drug treatment facility in the state prison system.\r\n\r\nIn August 1997, Jay Jones, TBN's director of telephone ministry, wrote prison officials that Ford would have a job with the network after he got out, despite his "extended leave of absence."\r\n\r\nBut Ford said that after he was released in February 1998, he was told he no longer had a position at TBN.\r\n\r\n"There comes a point in time when you have to say, 'Enough is enough,' " said John Casoria, a TBN lawyer who is a nephew of the Crouches.\r\n\r\nFord responded with his threat to sue. The settlement followed.\r\n\r\nDespite TBN's efforts to keep Ford's charges secret, they surfaced in an unrelated 1998 lawsuit. A former bodyguard for TBN personality Benny Hinn testified in a deposition that during a European bus tour that year, Hinn had told a group of associates about "a sexual relationship that Paul Crouch had with his chauffeur."\r\n\r\nThe witness, Mario C. Licciardello, quoted Hinn as saying: "Paul's defense was that he was drunk."\r\n\r\nHinn and six others mentioned by Licciardello, who died in 2000, told The Times that Hinn never made such remarks. However, Rick Jones, a retired police officer and ordained minister who worked for Hinn, said he heard Hinn talk about Crouch's alleged homosexual relationship on that bus.\r\n\r\nJones said he was disgusted by the talk and "got up and walked away. I didn't want to hear gossip."\r\n\r\n\r\nAsking $10 million\r\n\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, Ford began to have second thoughts about keeping silent. Last year, with Mahlow's help, he wrote his manuscript, titled "Arrowhead."\r\n\r\nFriends said Ford wanted to expose what he viewed as Crouch's hypocrisy. They said he also needed money and hoped to earn some by selling the manuscript. It's unclear how Ford spent his 1998 settlement, but today he leads a modest existence, living in a room of a Lake Forest home and working as a mortgage salesman.\r\n\r\nMinistry officials learned of the book in April 2003, when Ford walked onto the set of TBN's Costa Mesa broadcast studio and handed a copy of the manuscript to Crouch.\r\n\r\nFord's attorney, Eugene Zech, said that Brewer, the TBN lawyer, called him the next business day. In court papers, Zech said that Brewer asked "if Ford might be willing to accept $1 million in exchange for the manuscript."\r\n\r\nZech said in the court filing that he suggested $10 million.\r\n\r\nWhen the parties went to arbitration, Crouch's lawyers argued that publication would violate the 1998 settlement and cause irreparable damage to Crouch's reputation. Ford's lawyers argued that the secrecy agreement was overly broad and violated his free-speech rights.\r\n\r\nArbitrator Robert J. Neill ruled that Ford's right to make his allegations public "was sold to [Crouch] for $425,000." Ford "bargained away his right to speak on certain matters and now suggests that his right to free speech trumps that bargain\u2026. [His] right to discuss these matters was bought and paid for. He relinquished that right."\r\n\r\nPaul Crouch Jr., a TBN executive and the televangelist's oldest son, said that despite the favorable ruling, he wished his father had never entered into the settlement with Ford.\r\n\r\nCrouch said advisors persuaded his father that it would be cheaper to settle than to litigate. He said TBN was particularly anxious to avoid negative publicity because the ministry was celebrating its 25th anniversary that year.\r\n\r\n"In hindsight, we should have fought Lonnie tooth and nail," the son said in an interview. "We should have drawn the battle lines right there." \r\n\r\n Read ktla.trb.com online","author":"BETH .MC","parent_id":122559,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","created":"2005-02-15 10:37:01","modified":"2013-11-11 00:32:08","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/02\/h2.jpg","image":{"original":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2005\/02\/h2.jpg"}}]}\r\n
\r\n This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary\r\n Worker Online
\r\n http:\/\/rwor.org
\r\n Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
\r\n Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"darbycrash1965@yahoo.com","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"\r\n\r\n