The Crushing Blow to Mitt’s Quix-Toxic Quest: ‘Good Samaritan’ or ‘Corporate Bandit’

All secure behind closed doors we have seen and heard you Mitt, chumming with your choice of friendlies - ultra-rich supporters. You told us in Tampa you were a man of goodwill and great benevolence. We know the story of the Good Samaritan… However, now we know you, Mitt… You are not that kind of benefactor. You are the worst kind of Taker not a Giver. Some stories/parables from a Christian’s childhood Bible Stories are indelible and belief driving. The parable of the Good Samaritan is just exactly one of those powerful life teachings.

Good Acts and Civic Good – But Does It Pay? The Parable of the Good Samaritan shows even the ‘unbelievers’ have the capacity for economic-free empathy (Georg Pencz Engraving 1543)

Christ told this illusive story to draw out the real meaning of his ministry and God’s wishes for believers. The truth Christ said is that even a man who practices a “cult” religion (Samaritans were a labeled a “sect” for “unorthodox religious practices” during the time of Jesus and where therefore social outcasts)--is more compassion and understanding about human needs and poverty than the Pharisees and the Sadducees of Christ’s own orthodox Jewish practitioners and leaders at the time. The Good Samaritan parable arose out of a challenge given Jesus by a lawyer who confronted him about his ministry and unorthodox practices (such as eating with prostitutes and tax collectors).

Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind “[Deuteronomy 6:5]; and “your neighbor as yourself” [Leviticus 19:18]." He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live." But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" — Luke 10:25–29, World English Bible

Given this challenge Jesus replied with this parable/teaching story:

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Note who did not intervene or help out: A religious priest, and then a lawyer. However, a Samaritan (a heretic member of a religious sect and outcast in the eyes of Jews to whom Jesus was speaking) was “moved with compassion” and “took care of him.” A “Good Samaritan” cares deeply about “victims.”

Sermonizing some pastor Sunday may obtain or gain insight expanding upon this parable for our times. She or he might skip over to refer also to that other story that expounds upon the relationship of the rich to the poor, The Rich Man & Lazarus. (See McGuffey: "The Blind-eyed Marriage of the Conservative Churches to the Excessive & Corrupt Business Practices") Yet using the Good Samaritan as an anchor, the good pastor can illuminate the power of the parable - educated and able men pass by those who have fallen among thieves and pass along indifferent and unmoved by such, a victim.

Those thieves the pastor may chance to connect with the Koch Brothers. who have stolen the clean air and pure water from those who work in their life threatening and notorious, heavily EPA-fined dirty manufacturing and cancer-causing petro operations/leaking pipeline facilities slung across America, many inflicting death and suffering on both Koch workers and communities surrounding them.

Or the pastor could refer to those clever manipulators of corporatocracy (Corporatist Job Thieves) whose lobbying and bribery (ALEC) for loophole and financial friendly legislation seeks laws and regulations which allow them to “steal” the jobs, livelihoods, and local places of employment from working families in order for their own “harvesting” of such community wealth as Mitt has so successfully done in the name of “free enterprise.” (See the video from the 1980’s were Mitt actually uses the term “harvest” when exalting in his shrewd methodology to his backers). These men are the same cut as the “robbers” in Christ’s parable.

One indication of Romney’s involvement in untoward activity and collaboration in the building Bain Capital includes the following:

“After initially struggling to find investors, Romney traveled to Miami in 1983 to win pledges of $9 million, 40 percent of Bain’s start-up money. Some investors had extensive ties to the death squads responsible for the vast majority of the tens of thousands of deaths in El Salvador during the '80s. The investors include the Salaverria family, [whom] former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White, has previously accused of directly funding the Salvadoran paramilitaries. In his memoir, former Bain executive Harry Strachan writes Romney pushed aside his own misgivings about the investors to accept their backing. Strachan writes, quote, ‘These Latin American friends have loyally rolled over investments in succeeding funds, actively participated in Bain Capital's May investor meetings, and are still today one of the largest investor groups in Bain Capital.’"

Source: On Democracy Now the piece “Romney’s Death Squad Ties: Bain Launched with Millions from Oligarchs Behind Salvadoran Atrocities”, August 10, 2012.

Let us not forget that super rich cabal that in 1913 persuaded Woodrow Wilson to allow the federal banking system to be privatized and put into the Federal Reserve System. Those same wealthy manipulators did in fact pull or harvest their “takings” from the 1929 stock market crash just prior to The ‘29 Crash, thus using insider information and skills, protecting their wealth and holdings. But at what horrendous human cost and the sowing of the seeds of WW II, a time of high crime against the entire world.

Let’s return to the meaning found in the narrative of the “Good Samaritan”.

Seeing a badly injured man, the victim of a crime, along the roadside is one thing. But notice what Christ said. Look. See. Who was it that decided to observe and assess the man’s conditions of need and simply pass on indifferently?

The entire point of the GOP National Convention in Tampa would appear to be an attempt to “sell” Mitt Romney as a very generous man. Mitt: the benevolent Mormon Bishop. Mitt: the caring family man, etc. Then came Romney’s 47% damning Revelation:

“All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” “There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what."

These, Romney’s closed door revelations, were so shocking that Dr. Gregory Prince, a Mormon Historian and powerful defender of his religion, was compelled to proclaim, “Mitt Romney is not the face of Mormonism.” Dr. Prince:

“The issue of Romney's Mormon faith has never gone away, although its presence has waxed and waned as other issues have come and gone. How -- or if -- he chooses to use his religion as part of his public biography is up to him, but the fact that he is the only Mormon ever to be the nominee for the Presidency of a major political party makes it inevitable that even if people do not judge him because of his religion, they will judge his religion because of him. Given the unfolding news of this week, I regret to say that Mitt Romney is not the face of Mormonism.” (Emphasis Added)

So in his Quixotic Campaign Mitt has now devastatingly failed to redeem his father and has, in-fact, brought irreparable damage to his own precious Mormonism tradition. He’s a disgrace; having lost face in his own America, a nation that has never fully understood his cult religion and its place in society.

 Is it any wonder Wife, Ann Romney, would reveal on CBS that she has become very anxious over Mitt’s mental and emotional abilities to carry out the burdens of office, if elected? A lot has been made over the fact that Mitt is clearly more “centered” and “himself” when he’s campaigning accompanied by Paul Ryan and/or Ann, his wife.

 It is more than abundantly clear Mitt is in a unrelenting bind. He cannot control the radical GOP Apparatchiks (Operatives) “not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details”] who are determined to elect him to act as a figurehead ready to cooperate with an extremist anti-government agenda. That is, they are determined to elect a Republican if only as a compliant “document signer” for their planned radical legislation ala the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC’s nationwide agenda and the checklist of the Tea Party’s anti-government blitzkrieg coup d'etat. Now the “Mormon Candidate”, Mitt Romney, once portrayed as a kind and compassionate “Good Samaritan, ” falls prey to his own greed and duplicity--the dangerous vicissitudes of vicious politics. This is a crushing blow to Romney, a man on a crusade to save and rebuild his beloved father’s broken legacy, elevate, and authenticate in the eyes of the nation and the world his own Mormon Faith and bolster his father’s honor as a political leader well-suited to have been elected U.S. President back in 1968. How personally tragic and very, very sad for Mitt! Ann Romney has every reason to worry over the mental well-being of her Mitt; this man has been on the road to the presidency for six long slogging years, far too long to survive without fissures and stress due to the contortions and reversals of personal beliefs/religious training, and ambitions that such a grueling task exacts from a man whose main purpose in life may well-be to find his own place out from under his father's political shadow and avenge his father’s tragic and ignominious rejection from the 1968 GOP Presidential Nomination.

George Romney Campaign Slogan in 1968 – “Great for 68”

Michigan’s Gov. George Romney was rudely ejected from the process ostensibly because of Gov. G.W.R’s statement that he had been “brainwashed” by military brass that were determined to take the nation further into that horrible Vietnam War. It was a war Gov. George Romney abjured as a high quality Mormon on basic Mormon principles and would have no doubt changed the military execution thereof and possibly withdrawn the U.S. from Vietnam as its Commander-in-Chief:

“Initially, (George) Romney supported the Vietnam War, but after a 1965 trip there, he began to question the mission, feeling he had been ‘brainwashed’ by military officials. In August 1967, he articulated his opposition to the war.”

Source: Wikipedia, George W. Romney Campaign 1968 Mormonism, as a religion, has a conflict with serving in the military writes one Mormon; war and killing:

“…(T)here has always been an uneasy alliance between Mormon attitudes about serving in the military and religious devotion. President Spencer W. Kimball famously taught: "We (Americans) are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” - (Matthew 5:44–45)" “For many there is a person who kills for country or a traitorous coward. There are no positive terms for a non-combat hometown warrior, peace soldier, or citizen diplomat.” (Emphasis Added)

The exposure of Mitt’s most intimate thoughts concerning and defining the 47% of Americans whose support he forfeits, which Romney identified in Boca Raton as never voting for his candidacy and, coupled with the insider knowledge that his “cult” status as a Mormon was, and is, blocking his hoped-for plurality in the Deep South. This presents an intransient obstacle to his election. From a Brooking Institution Study titled “Does Mitt Romney have a ‘Religious Problem” in May 2012:

“Decades of polling has shown that Mormon candidates face steep obstacles in the American electorate. Roughly one in five Americans say they would not vote for a generally well-qualified nominee for their party who happened to be a Mormon according to Gallop surveys going back to 1967.”] , where “white” Evangelicals [by wide margins according to the Brookings Study make sure “Things are worse in the South, a region with especially high shares of Evangelical Christians. Romney lost Evangelicals (in the 2012 primaries) by 35 points in Louisiana, 33 points in Georgia, 24 points in South Carolina, and 16 points in Tennessee, carrying none of these states).”

Apparently there is a big problem here for Mitt. Southern far-right-religious will not back Mitt and in protest against his “cultist” status –they may “sit this one out”, may refuse to vote for president all together, despite the efforts of the Southern Baptist Convention via Dr. Richard Land’s attempts to assuage his some sixteen million SBC members to see Mormonism as a noble Fourth Abrahamic Religion-not a unique and suspect American Nativist non-Christian Cult, and vote, not for Romney but, directly against a “Black” Barack Obama (believing they are “saving American Exceptionalism” from a Socialist). Actual context of Dr. Land’s Statement:

“As controversy over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith continues to stir among conservatives and other candidates ahead of tomorrow night’s debate, some have questioned whether Mormons can be considered true Christians. “According to Richard Land, President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the answer is no. “Most Evangelical Protestants and most conservative Catholics would say no, it is not,’ Land told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, refuting the notion that Mormonism is a Christian faith. ‘It is another religion. It does not have an orthodox view of the Trinity and the full and complete deity of Jesus Christ.’” He continued: “Perhaps the best way to look at Mormonism is it is the fourth Abrahamic religion. Joseph Smith playing the role of Muhammad, and the Book of Mormon playing the role of the Quran.”

That rancorous old political street fighter and cultural warrior, Pat Buchanan, has weighed in the following manner, in direct reference to the role race plays in the Southern Baptist Convention and the nostalgic Deep South. Joan Walsh, on July 25, 2012 in Salon:

“Remember that Pat Buchanan has compared the Tea Partiers to “George Wallace voters,” and bragged that he won them over to Nixon. Buchanan and [FOX’s Roger] Ailes are trying to do it again, and having a black Democrat in the White House makes them think it will be even easier this time. “Honestly, it won’t be easier. There are too many people of every race who are genuinely not racist, or open to naked racial appeals. I truly believe the vast majority of American voters will judge Obama on his accomplishments or lack thereof in 2012, not the color of his skin. But older white voters scared by social change are a small but reliable base for [FOX’s] Ailes and Buchanan to rely on.”

In another Salon Piece on February 2, 2010, Joan Walsh reported this bit of background:

“I reminded Buchanan that I covered a local tea party last year and worked hard to acknowledge the economic populism and anti-corporate-bailout sentiment animating some of the demonstrators. Whatever. But my favorite part of the debate was when Buchanan bragged about capturing the George Wallace vote for his boss, Richard Nixon, and I called that the “racist” vote. (For the kids, George Wallace was the Alabama governor who preached “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever” and stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to prevent black students from entering in 1963. He ran for president as an independent in 1968 and won five Southern states; Nixon and Buchanan clawed many of his supporters back in 1972, after an assassination attempt put Wallace in a wheelchair.) “Calling the Wallace vote ‘racist’ enraged Buchanan too, and he countered that those racists had voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. I acknowledged many of them did: Johnson lost them when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and he probably knew it at the time, famously remarking (although I can’t find a reliable source for the famous remark) that he’d delivered the South to the Republicans for a long time. Right about then Matthews called time on our segment. “You can dismiss this as dumb cable TV chatter, or ancient history, and that’s your right. But I would urge you not to do either. By bragging about his success in winning the racist Wallace vote for Nixon way back when, Buchanan is (perhaps unconsciously) admitting the through-line from that racist GOP segment through the birthers and extreme anti-Obama tea partiers of today. It’s a remarkable admission. We should pay attention to it.”

How exasperating and angering it must be for so many of those nativist Americans-who still hold racial prejudice and intolerance for Mormonism--a religion outside “born again” Christianity—who have only two major choices in their interpretation of the choices for president in November 2012: Vote for a Cultist or vote against a Black! Historic race between a “Sect-ist” Romney and a “Black” Barack Obama raises a very bifurcated dilemma for the Southern Evangelical American voter . Southern Baptists in particular can vote either against their settled doctrine condemning “sects” or express their “racism” by voting against America’s first black president. Again Brookings:

“Those supposedly anti-Romney voters are among the least supportive of the president. Only one in four, Evangelical Christians has favorable opinions of Obama. (FOX News-Roger Ailes-Racist) Indeed, among Republicans who do not think of Mormons as Christians—that is, the subgroup believed most predisposed against Romney—fully 92% have unfavorable opinions of Barack Obama.” *

*Note: This information is as of May 2012, some of that opposition to Pres. Obama may be changing due to the Romney/Ryan full-frontal attacks on Social Security.  

Guest commentary cross-posted with permission to Kos.

On the Reader:
See the VIDEO of Mitt Romney while at Bain Capital talking  about 'harvesting' profits or read the analysis from the Brookings Institution on Mitt Romney's religion and politics
“Does Mitt Romney have a ‘Religious Problem'”.

Related Slates:
Middling Mitt Romney Not of His Fathers' Sterling Civic Michigan Mettle (Gaskell & George Romney) (June 2012) - Mitt Romney: America’s Nascent Holy “god” & Possible President? (February 2012) - Welcome to Planet Willard: Michigan's Wayward Son Mitt Romney to Rule His Own World (January 2012) and more on Mitt Romney and his father George Romney on the Gazette.