Tuesday, August 4, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-officer-handcuffed-mentally-disabled-kids-as-punishment-lawsuit-says/

Lawsuit: Officer handcuffed mentally disabled kids as punishment
CBS/AP
August 4, 2015

A video of one of the incidents shows the 8-year-old boy struggling and crying while sitting in a chair.
YOUTUBE/ACLU

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Two northern Kentucky women have sued a county sheriff and one of his school resource officers for placing their two disabled elementary school children in handcuffs.

The handcuffs were too large to fit around the wrists of the 8-year-old boy and the 9-year-old girl, both of whom have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and are identified in court documents only by their initials. The boy also has a history of trauma, CBS affiliate WKYT reports.

School Resource Officer Kevin Sumner put the handcuffs around the children's biceps, locking their arms behind them. A video of one of the incidents shows the 8-year-old boy struggling and crying while sitting in a chair.

"You don't get to swing at me like that," Sumner told the boy, according to a video that was captured by a school administrator and uploaded to YouTube by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the women and their children. "You can do what we've asked you to, or you can suffer the consequences."

A federal lawsuit says the boy - 3 feet 6 inches tall and 52 pounds - was removed from class last August because he was not following his teacher's directions. The boy then tried to leave the principal's office but was physically restrained by school administrators until Sumner arrived to escort the boy to the bathroom.

On the way back from the bathroom, the boy tried to hit Sumner with his elbow, according to a report from the Kenton County Sheriff's office cited in the lawsuit. That's when Sumner put him in handcuffs.

The 9-year-old girl, who weighed about 56 pounds, was sent to an isolation room at her school last August for being disruptive. School officials asked Sumner to help after the girl tried to leave the room and was restrained by the principal and vice principal. A report from the sheriff's office said Sumner put the girl in handcuffs because she was "attempting to injure school staff."

Attorney Rickell Howard with the Children's Resource Center in Covington told CBS affiliate WLKY that the officer went too far.

"Both of the cases Officer Sumner was called to respond and that's where we have his reaction, which was to restrain the children using mechanical restraints, which are handcuffs," Howard said.

The lawsuit said the experience caused "a severe mental health crisis" and Sumner called for a "medical crisis team." The girl was taken by ambulance to a hospital for a psychiatric assessment and treatment.

The lawsuit asks for a judge to ban the school from doing this again and for money to compensate for the pain and emotional trauma and for attorneys' fees.

Kentucky state regulations ban school officials from physically restraining students that they know have disabilities that could cause problems.

The lawsuit says officials at both schools were aware of the students disabilities, which including "impulsivity, and difficulty paying attention, complying with directives, controlling emotions and remaining seated."

"Shackling children is not okay. It is traumatizing, and in this case it is also illegal," Susan Mizner, disability counsel for the ACLU, said in a news release.

Col. Pat Morgan with the Kenton County Sheriff's Office declined to comment, saying the office had not been officially notified of the lawsuit. Robert Sanders, Sumner's attorney, said Sumner put the children in handcuffs because "they were placing themselves and other people in danger of harm and that's what the book says to do."




“School Resource Officer Kevin Sumner put the handcuffs around the children's biceps, locking their arms behind them. A video of one of the incidents shows the 8-year-old boy struggling and crying while sitting in a chair. "You don't get to swing at me like that," Sumner told the boy, according to a video that was captured by a school administrator and uploaded to YouTube by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the women and their children. "You can do what we've asked you to, or you can suffer the consequences." …. The boy then tried to leave the principal's office but was physically restrained by school administrators until Sumner arrived to escort the boy to the bathroom. On the way back from the bathroom, the boy tried to hit Sumner with his elbow, according to a report from the Kenton County Sheriff's office cited in the lawsuit. That's when Sumner put him in handcuffs. The 9-year-old girl, who weighed about 56 pounds, was sent to an isolation room at her school last August for being disruptive. School officials asked Sumner to help after the girl tried to leave the room and was restrained by the principal and vice principal. A report from the sheriff's office said Sumner put the girl in handcuffs because she was "attempting to injure school staff." …. The lawsuit said the experience caused "a severe mental health crisis" and Sumner called for a "medical crisis team." The girl was taken by ambulance to a hospital for a psychiatric assessment and treatment. The lawsuit asks for a judge to ban the school from doing this again and for money to compensate for the pain and emotional trauma and for attorneys' fees. Kentucky state regulations ban school officials from physically restraining students that they know have disabilities that could cause problems. The lawsuit says officials at both schools were aware of the students disabilities, which including "impulsivity, and difficulty paying attention, complying with directives, controlling emotions and remaining seated." …. Col. Pat Morgan with the Kenton County Sheriff's Office declined to comment, saying the office had not been officially notified of the lawsuit. Robert Sanders, Sumner's attorney, said Sumner put the children in handcuffs because "they were placing themselves and other people in danger of harm and that's what the book says to do."

I watched the video and I must say the officer didn’t use a harsh or threatening tone of voice with the boy nor was he physically rough. I didn’t see what happened with the girl, who apparently went into a “crisis” over being handcuffed, and was taken over by a "medical crisis team” at Officer Sumner’s initiation. I think he basically did the best he could with handling the situation. There have always been kids like these before ADHD had ever been invented as a concept. They usually got sent to the principal’s office where she spanked them soundly enough to “get their attention.”

There are drugs for ADHD and probably some well researched ways by now that parents can use to intervene with them to train them better in general and make them able to attend school without totally disrupting the class. If that happens they can actually learn something while they’re there. My niece has two children who were diagnosed with ADHD and they took a drug, and proved that they were far from “intellectually disabled,” but rather very bright.

I think it is a mistake for “School Resource Officers” who are basically cops and who look and act like cops to be involved in the matter unless the kid is really violent and maybe older than 8 or 9 years. When I was in the seventh grade we had a child who had failed several grades and was violent. He would actually start throwing things. I think sooner or later there is a point at which a child like this should be removed from the school entirely and educated in a special area either at home, or in a school or separate classroom where they will be treated as “Special Ed” kids. A child that can’t focus, can’t sit still, can’t follow instructions, or has lots of temper tantrums is not really ready for the regular classroom any more than one who is intellectually disabled is. I empathise with the parents, but with the school and this officer, too.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-submits-bid-for-vast-arctic-territories-to-united-nations/

Russia stakes claim to vast Arctic territories at U.N.
CBS/AP
August 4, 2015

Photograph -- Russia's President Vladimir Putin (front C) and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu (front L) walk to watch military exercises upon his arrival at the Kirillovsky firing ground in the Leningrad region, on March 3, 2014. MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Photograph -- 12 PHOTOS -- Glacier Melt: The Heat is On

MOSCOW -- Russia has submitted its bid for vast territories in the Arctic to the United Nations, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.

The ministry said in a statement that Russia is claiming over 463,000 square miles of Artic sea shelf extending more than 350 nautical miles from the shore.

Russia, the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic, which is believed to hold up to a quarter of the planet's undiscovered oil and gas. Rivalry for Arctic resources has intensified as shrinking polar ice is opening new opportunities for exploration.

According to a new study, in the first part of the 21st century, glaciers are melting faster than at any point in the last 165 years -- and possibly any point in recorded history.

Russia was the first to submit its claim in 2002, but the U.N. sent it back for lack of evidence.

The ministry said that the resubmitted bid contains new arguments. "Ample scientific data collected in years of Arctic research are used to back the Russian claim," it said.

In 2007, Moscow staked a symbolic claim to the Arctic seabed by dropping a canister containing the Russian flag on the ocean floor from a submarine at the North Pole.

Amid tensions with the West over Ukraine, the Kremlin also has moved to beef up Russian military forces in the Arctic. The effort has included the restoration of a Soviet-era military base on the New Siberian Islands and other military outposts in the Arctic. Russian officials said the facilities are crucial for protecting shipping routes that link Europe with the Pacific region across the Arctic Ocean.

Earlier this year, the military conducted sweeping maneuvers in the Arctic that involved 38,000 servicemen, more than 50 surface ships and submarines and 110 aircraft. As part of the drills, the military demonstrated its capability to quickly beef up its forces on the Arctic Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land archipelagos.




“Russia has submitted its bid for vast territories in the Arctic to the United Nations, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. The ministry said in a statement that Russia is claiming over 463,000 square miles of Artic sea shelf extending more than 350 nautical miles from the shore. Russia, the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic, which is believed to hold up to a quarter of the planet's undiscovered oil and gas. Rivalry for Arctic resources has intensified as shrinking polar ice is opening new opportunities for exploration. According to a new study, in the first part of the 21st century, glaciers are melting faster than at any point in the last 165 years -- and possibly any point in recorded history. …. The ministry said that the resubmitted bid contains new arguments. "Ample scientific data collected in years of Arctic research are used to back the Russian claim," it said. In 2007, Moscow staked a symbolic claim to the Arctic seabed by dropping a canister containing the Russian flag on the ocean floor from a submarine at the North Pole. …. The effort has included the restoration of a Soviet-era military base on the New Siberian Islands and other military outposts in the Arctic. Russian officials said the facilities are crucial for protecting shipping routes that link Europe with the Pacific region across the Arctic Ocean.”

I wonder what the US is doing to beef up our military forces and claims to land, along with Canada, Denmark and Norway. This was a tantalizing article, but it isn’t really about aggressiveness so much as a predictable move by all nations now that global warming is no longer a mere theory. I would like to see more. I wonder what the Republicans say about all this?





http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/04/429219665/planned-parenthood-opponents-talk-government-shutdown-after-bill-fails

Planned Parenthood Opponents Talk Government Shutdown After Bill Fails
Ailsa Chang
August 4, 2015

Photograph -- "I don't like a government shutdown, but this is a clear case of totally improper use of taxpayers' dollars. I have an obligation to the taxpayers of Arizona," said Sen. John McCain. He had scolded his Republican colleagues in 2013 for shutting down the government over the Affordable Care Act. He says this issue is different.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

The uproar over sting videos alleging Planned Parenthood illegally profits from selling aborted fetal tissue has only just begun on Capitol Hill.

Republican and Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley said Tuesday he has opened an inquiry into Planned Parenthood's "facilitation of activities described in the videos." The House Judiciary Committee had announced last month that it would investigate the organization as well.

And on Monday night, a bill that would block all federal funding for Planned Parenthood failed in the Senate. But that vote was only the opening volley in a larger funding battle to play out in September.

It takes a special kind of issue to make threats of a government shutdown even halfway credible on Capitol Hill. Not just any controversy will fly. Genuine government shutdown potential requires an issue that taps into a deep well of anger. It must be an ideological litmus test lawmakers can't easily wriggle out of.

It seems Republicans are now coalescing around just that kind of issue. The ultimate of all litmus tests — abortion.

"This is not about Cecil the lion. This is not about whales at SeaWorld. This is about children," said Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who helped push a bill to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood.

That bill failed Monday. But it was simply Act 1 for even bigger drama coming in September. That's when government funding expires, and a chorus of Republicans have already vowed to reject any funding measure that contains money for Planned Parenthood.

"We should use any and every procedural means we have available to end funding for Planned Parenthood," said Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

And if that means a government shutdown, then, so be it.

"I don't like a government shutdown," said Republican John McCain of Arizona. "But this is a clear case of totally improper use of taxpayers' dollars. I have an obligation to the taxpayers of Arizona."

McCain had scolded his Republican colleagues in 2013 for shutting down the government over the Affordable Care Act. And then he told them to ditch shutting down the Department of Homeland Security over the president's executive action on immigration.

But McCain says this issue is different, and Democrats would be unwise to block their efforts.

"If they want to stand before the American people and say that they support this practice of dismembering unborn children, then that's their privilege," said McCain.

But Democrats who say they're concerned about the videos, too, are perplexed at the Republican strategy. They point out Planned Parenthood is already banned from using federal money for abortions, except in rare cases. And Claire McCaskill of Missouri says defunding a group that provides contraceptives will only increase abortions.

"If I want to reduce abortions, which we all ought to agree on, the dumbest thing we can do is to cut off access to birth control. And that's exactly what the Republicans are trying to do," said McCaskill.

Republican leaders haven't yet said whether they'll consider the strategy. When Mitch McConnell took over as Senate majority leader this year, he promised he'd oversee no government shutdowns under his tenure.

Meanwhile, some Democrats seem to be taunting their Republican colleagues to try shutting the government again.

"Have Republicans learned nothing? They tried to do this over [ACA] and had to walk away weeks later with their tail between their legs," said Chuck Schumer of New York. "Ted Cruz said, 'Follow me.' And they followed him for three weeks. Till they got to the very edge of the cliff. Are they going to do that again?"

Republicans will have the monthlong August recess to mull that over.




“And on Monday night, a bill that would block all federal funding for Planned Parenthood failed in the Senate. But that vote was only the opening volley in a larger funding battle to play out in September. It takes a special kind of issue to make threats of a government shutdown even halfway credible on Capitol Hill. Not just any controversy will fly. Genuine government shutdown potential requires an issue that taps into a deep well of anger. It must be an ideological litmus test lawmakers can't easily wriggle out of. …. That bill failed Monday. But it was simply Act 1 for even bigger drama coming in September. That's when government funding expires, and a chorus of Republicans have already vowed to reject any funding measure that contains money for Planned Parenthood. …. But Democrats who say they're concerned about the videos, too, are perplexed at the Republican strategy. They point out Planned Parenthood is already banned from using federal money for abortions, except in rare cases. And Claire McCaskill of Missouri says defunding a group that provides contraceptives will only increase abortions. …. . When Mitch McConnell took over as Senate majority leader this year, he promised he'd oversee no government shutdowns under his tenure. Meanwhile, some Democrats seem to be taunting their Republican colleagues to try shutting the government again. "Have Republicans learned nothing? They tried to do this over [ACA] and had to walk away weeks later with their tail between their legs," said Chuck Schumer of New York.”

So what’s gonna happen, huh? The last two times I followed one of these government shutdowns I was dismayed and genuinely worried. I have since looked it up on the Net and it is not the mental failings of irresponsible Tea Party fanatics, but rather one of the legal options for members of the House and Senate, and directly in line (which is truly reason for dismay) with actual Dominionist theories. See Huffington Post article below. I have clipped the following statements from that article. “Dominionism” means that these Christians mean to literally take over the US government and put in Biblical laws. Anybody I know want to continue to live here if that happens? I personally will cross the border and go to Canada. This next clips that are in quotation marks are from the Huffington Post article below.

“I'm interested in understanding what account of Christianity creates the "no compromise" crusade that the Tea Party has become known for. It turns out that Ted's father, Rafael Cruz, is a pastor with Texas charismatic ministry Purifying Fire International who has been campaigning against Obamacare the last several months. He has a distinct theological vision for what America is supposed to look like: Christian dominionism. …. In the months building up to the present showdown, Cruz has been giving speeches at Tea Party rallies and other religious right gatherings as part of a campaign to defund Obamacare. In watching the speeches, I can see how his status as a Cuban American refugee fits the ethos of the far right culture warrior movement perfectly. He is able to shift seamlessly from stories about the oppression of the Castro regime to talking about the Obama administration. A good example comes from a speech at the Iowa Family Leadership Summit on August 12th where Cruz said that the government's "attack on religion" is part of a longer-term plan to establish socialism: When you hear this attack on religion, it's not really an attack on religion. The fundamental basis is this. Socialism requires that government becomes your God. That's why they have to destroy your concept of God. They have to destroy all your loyalties except loyalty to the government. That's what's behind homosexual marriage. It's really more about the destruction of the traditional family than about homosexuality, because you need also to destroy loyalty to the family. This paragraph is a textbook example of postmodern "truthiness," in which any narrative of reality "works" as long as it's structurally logical. …. A more disturbing element of Cruz's speeches were his repeated calls for a "black robe regiment," a concept promoted by Christian revisionist historian David Barton who claims that clergy were the main backbone of the American Revolutionary War. …. So it sounds like we're entering into the age where the Christians (who give faithfully) are going to get all the money through the "end-time transfer of wealth." Isn't the title of that sermon series just awesome? Getting to the Top and Staying There! It was a packed house. I wonder how many other apocalyptic prosperity gospel megachurches are packing their houses by preaching sermon series about getting to the top and staying there. …. So to pull all this logic together, God anoints priests to work in the church directly and kings to go out into the marketplace to conquer, plunder, and bring back the spoils to the church. The reason governmental regulation has to disappear from the marketplace is to make it completely available to the plunder of Christian "kings" who will accomplish the "end time transfer of wealth." Then "God's bankers" will usher in the "coming of the messiah." The government is being shut down so that God's bankers can bring Jesus back. …. And here's the thing. When you get a lot of people together in a megachurch, you can do some pretty impressive things with your mission projects. You can feed thousands of people and host ESL classes and job training programs and medical clinics. And I imagine that seeing your accomplishments could give you the hubris of thinking we don't need a government at all to make our society run; our church can be the new government.” “. . . . “

Not only do I consider any form of religious dominionism to be heretical – religion should be personal and private, with the fellowship of others who share those views – and not an attempt to take over our Democracy which I do consider to be something close to “holy.” That doesn’t mean I’m going to “worship” the government, but that I believe in a government that will serve society’s overall needs while allowing and fostering the many differences that occur between individual citizens. I don’t want to see the kind of religious wars here that are rampant in the Middle East right now, and that were in England and the rest of Europe in the 1500s, etc. during the Protestant Reformation. To this day Protestants, Catholics and Jews remain embroiled with hatreds against each other, rather than getting together to form a peaceful and “enlightened” society. Now that, to me, would be a true Christian goal! And now we have added Islam, the most warlike of all, to the US, Europe, Africa and Asia.

I would be in favor of getting rid of the much abused tax free status of all religions now, and yes, of supposedly charitable institutions as well, since half of those who qualify for that under the IRS rules are not charitable at all, but POLITICAL. Now the Christian Evangelicals are also POLITICAL. It’s a lie, and it damages the Democracy that we have worked so hard to build by turning it into a bulky, barely coordinated legislative process ruled by money engorged “religions,” that are not for the production of decent people anymore, but for hysterical and fanatical group identities which are more easily won over to the newest MIND CONTROL system that the Koch Brothers can dream up. All of that is keeping us from making any common sense laws at all in a most frustrating and annoying way. I really hate what has been happening in this country in the last 20 or so years. I almost don’t recognize it anymore. I do still have hope, however, and will continue to be politically active to the degree that I can.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-guyton/the-theology-of-governmen_b_4020537.html

The Theology of Government Shutdown: Christian Dominionism
Morgan Guyton
Director, NOLA Wesley Foundation
Posted: 10/01/2013

On the eve of our government shutdown, I wanted to do some research into the theological roots of Senator Ted Cruz, the standard-bearer of the Tea Party Republicans behind the shutdown. I'm interested in understanding what account of Christianity creates the "no compromise" crusade that the Tea Party has become known for. It turns out that Ted's father, Rafael Cruz, is a pastor with Texas charismatic ministry Purifying Fire International who has been campaigning against Obamacare the last several months. He has a distinct theological vision for what America is supposed to look like: Christian dominionism.

In the months building up to the present showdown, Cruz has been giving speeches at Tea Party rallies and other religious right gatherings as part of a campaign to defund Obamacare. In watching the speeches, I can see how his status as a Cuban American refugee fits the ethos of the far right culture warrior movement perfectly. He is able to shift seamlessly from stories about the oppression of the Castro regime to talking about the Obama administration.

A good example comes from a speech at the Iowa Family Leadership Summit on August 12th where Cruz said that the government's "attack on religion" is part of a longer-term plan to establish socialism:

When you hear this attack on religion, it's not really an attack on religion. The fundamental basis is this. Socialism requires that government becomes your God. That's why they have to destroy your concept of God. They have to destroy all your loyalties except loyalty to the government. That's what's behind homosexual marriage. It's really more about the destruction of the traditional family than about homosexuality, because you need also to destroy loyalty to the family.

This paragraph is a textbook example of postmodern "truthiness," in which any narrative of reality "works" as long as it's structurally logical. Cruz start with asserting the socialist conspiracy as a fundamental given and then show how it works as an explanation for everything else that's going on. It's so fascinating when the same people who declare themselves to be defenders of "absolute truth" are absolutely relativistic about truth in practice.

A more disturbing element of Cruz's speeches were his repeated calls for a "black robe regiment," a concept promoted by Christian revisionist historian David Barton who claims that clergy were the main backbone of the American Revolutionary War. Here's what Cruz had to say to the August 29th gathering of Heritage Action, the main lobbyist group behind shutting down the federal government:

It was pastors who were the backbone of the Revolution. Did you know where Paul Revere was going when he was saying the British are coming? He was going to the home of a pastor by the name of Jonas Clark... [who] was one of many that were called the black robe regiment. These were pastors that wore long black robes. Many of them had the continental army uniform under the black robe. They would preach in church on Sunday and then go out and fight with half their congregation for our independence. I want to encourage our pastors today not to hide behind their pulpits but take the spirit of the black robe regiment.

The theological ethos of Rafael Cruz's vision is in Christian dominionism; he talks about preaching a "message of dominion" that all Christians have received an "anointing as kings." I watched a sermon he preached on August 26, 2012 at the New Beginnings megachurch in Irving, Texas, led by Christian Zionist charismatic pastor Larry Huch. Huch incidentally had a very interesting prophecy to share when he introduced Cruz to preach:

We've been doing this series here that God laid on my heart: Getting to the top and staying there. A message for us as individuals, the kingdom of God, but also for America. It's not enough to get there. We need to stay there. It's not a coincidence that in a few weeks, we go into what's called in the Bible Rosh Hashanad [sic]... It will be the beginning of the spiritual year 2012. The number 12 means divine government. That God will begin to rule and reign. Not Wall Street, not Washington, God's people and His kingdom will begin to rule and reign. I know that's why God got Rafael's son elected, Ted Cruz the next senator.

But here's the exciting thing... The rabbinical teaching is... that in a few weeks begins that year 2012 and that this will begin what we call the end-time transfer of wealth. And that when these Gentiles begin to receive this blessing, they will never go back financially through the valley again. They will grow and grow and grow. It's said this way: that God is looking at the church and everyone in it and deciding in the next three and a half years who will be his bankers. And the ones that say here I am Lord, you can trust me, we will become so blessed that we will usher in the coming of the messiah.

So it sounds like we're entering into the age where the Christians (who give faithfully) are going to get all the money through the "end-time transfer of wealth." Isn't the title of that sermon series just awesome? Getting to the Top and Staying There! It was a packed house. I wonder how many other apocalyptic prosperity gospel megachurches are packing their houses by preaching sermon series about getting to the top and staying there.

Cruz's primary text for his sermon was Revelation 1:5-6, which says, "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever!" In Rafael's translation of the Bible, it says "kings and priests" instead of "a kingdom and priests." In the Greek, the word is basileian (accusative singular) and no manuscript variants are indicated, but never mind that.

Cruz shares that two types of people were anointed in the Old Testament, kings and priests:

Priests were anointed primarily to minister the glory of God. They were anointed to pray for the people, to offer sacrifices, to care for the temple, to be God's representatives before the people... Kings were anointed to take dominion. Kings were anointed to go to war, win the war, and bring the spoils of war to priests so the work of the kingdom of God could be accomplished. The king needed the blessing of the priest in order to be successful in battle... The priest also needed for the king to be successful in battle because the priest needed the spoils of war in order to repair the temple, in order to carry out the ministry that God had entrusted him.

What is so remarkable about this rendering of the relationship between kings and priests in the Old Testament is that God expressly forbade the Israelites from going to war for spoils. It is "truthiness" applied to Biblical interpretation. Well, the priests had expenses to pay in the temple, and the kings went to war. God anointed both of them. That must mean that the kings went to war to pay for the expenses in the temple.

The seamless move that Cruz makes without any justification is to say that because kings and priests were anointed in the Old Testament, that means there are two kinds of Christians today: kings and priests. Forget about the body of Christ and all the spiritual gifts identified in 1 Corinthians 12. Forget Jesus' exhortation in Mark 10 not to be like the Gentile princes but to be servants instead of kings. Cruz decries the way that churches have neglected their members' kingly anointing:

Our churches unfortunately are very focused on only one of these anointings and that is on the priestly anointing... Those of you who think you don't have the anointing to teach the word of God, to be teaching Sunday school, you're second class citizens. And so you begin to lead frustrated lives... The majority of you... your anointing... is an anointing as king. God has given you an anointing to go to the battlefield. And what's the battlefield? The marketplace. To go to the marketplace and occupy the land. To go to the marketplace and take dominion.

So to pull all this logic together, God anoints priests to work in the church directly and kings to go out into the marketplace to conquer, plunder, and bring back the spoils to the church. The reason governmental regulation has to disappear from the marketplace is to make it completely available to the plunder of Christian "kings" who will accomplish the "end time transfer of wealth." Then "God's bankers" will usher in the "coming of the messiah." The government is being shut down so that God's bankers can bring Jesus back.

And here's the thing. When you get a lot of people together in a megachurch, you can do some pretty impressive things with your mission projects. You can feed thousands of people and host ESL classes and job training programs and medical clinics. And I imagine that seeing your accomplishments could give you the hubris of thinking we don't need a government at all to make our society run; our church can be the new government.