Why Pope Francis Hasn’t Visited Argentina

Cardinal Bergoglio in Buenos Aires in 2010

From The American Spectator

By George Neumayr

“He knows nothing — not morals, not theology, not history. Nothing. Only power interests him.”

 

Last Saturday, I arrived in chilly Buenos Aires. I am sure it is just a coincidence, but my arrival coincided with the collapse of the peso. A dollar goes a long way in Argentina. For $40, Americans can get a four-star hotel; for $4, they can get a tasty steak. Signs of Argentinian economic malaise abound, from shanty towns on the outskirts of Buenos Aires to hobos sleeping on dirty mattresses in its downtown. Argentines love raw dollars, offering huge deals for cash purchases.

It appears that the Peronistas are on the verge of victory. As Brazil goes right, Argentina moves back to the left, such is its addiction to its socialist traditions.

My principal purpose in visiting Buenos Aires is to learn about its not-so-favorite son, Jorge Bergoglio, who still hasn’t visited Argentina since becoming Pope Francis. During my first few days here, I asked every Catholic I met to explain that anomaly. I got some blunt and brutal answers.

“We all know he is a son of a bitch,” said a former prosecutor to me. “We are ashamed of him. He represents our worst qualities.”

His friend chipped in that Catholics consider Francis “to be a fake, a make-believe pope,” not to mention, he added, an uncultured, ill-mannered flake.

The former prosecutor oozed contempt for Francis: “He knows nothing — not morals, not theology, not history. Nothing. Only power interests him.”

The description of Pope Francis as a power-mad ideologue is very widespread, I am finding. I spoke at length with Antonio Caponnetto, who is the Argentine author of several books on Pope Francis. “At seminary, his classmates called him ‘Machiavelli,’ ” he noted.

Caponnetto gives two reasons for why the pope has avoided his home country: one, at least half the country hates him, and two, Francis dislikes the supposedly “conservative,” pro-capitalist Macri regime. The latter reason is absurd: Macri is hardly conservative, as Argentine conservatives are the first to say.

On Wednesday morning, I visited with Santiago Estrada, Argentina’s former ambassador to the Holy See. He has been close to Bergoglio for decades, but he allowed that Bergoglio “hates businessmen.” He dislikes Macri, he said, not because Macri is a pillar of conservatism but because Macri is simply not as anti-business “as the pope.” Estrada was loath to criticize his friend, but he conceded that the pope’s promotion of molesting bishops has been “inexplicable.”

The pope’s predecessors visited their home countries. Even the timid Pope Benedict XVI braved his German critics and returned home.

Is it really possible Pope Francis could boycott Argentina for the rest of his tenure?

Probably not. For one thing, say engaged Catholics, if the hardcore leftists return to power, “he will come back.” Estrada thinks he “definitely will come back next year” if Macri loses, but that he will call it a “pastoral visit.”

“Francis has been working behind the scenes” to help Macri’s opponent, an Argentine political operative said to me. “He wants Macri to lose.”

Conservatives fear the prospect of a Peronista victory. One, who has a political blog, said to me, “I will leave the country. It won’t be safe for us.”

I got a small taste of that on Tuesday as I passed the office for one of Argentina’s left-wing parties. No sooner had I taken out my camera to take some pictures of it than a couple of Peronista wannabe thugs sprinted out of the office to question me. What, they demanded, are you doing? I ignored their gibbering, while another member of my party tried to appease them with a cleverly composed piece of faux flattery.

One eye-rolling conservative Catholic told me that the Peronism of Francisworld is so strong that some acolytes of the pope are talking about canonizing Evita.

The Ninth Most "Trustworthy Argentine"

While flying back to the Vatican after a visit to Armenia, Pope Francis declared that Christians should apologize to LGBTs and others who’ve been “offended” or “exploited” by the church. It’s the type of radical thinking that has helped Francis — the first non-European pontiff in more than 1,200 years — achieve a level of celebrity nearly unprecedented in the history of Catholicism.

But now it seems Francis’ star is swiftly falling where it perhaps matters most — his homeland, Argentina. Indeed, a recent local poll revealed that Francis — the former Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires — has tumbled from the first to the ninth most “trustworthy Argentine” in just two years.

Read more at New York Post >> 

 

Argentina's Thugs, Obama's Comrades

Columnist Mary O'Grady on what Argentina's expropriation of oil company YPF says about its leadership and economy. Photo: Getty Images

Argentina Once Again Provoking War Over the Falkland Islands

Is President Cristina Kirchner Counting on Marxist Friends in the Hemisphere?

The corrupt socialists that head the government of Argentina must once again be facing domestic political problems. It has become routine for precarious regimes in that dysfunctional country to rally public support by provoking their neighbors and international crises.

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is an Obama kind of gal. A former member of the Peronist Youth Movement, Ms. Kirchner has allied herself with Hugo Chavez, restricted the activities and movement of the U.S. ambassador, imposed confiscatory taxes and levies, attacked farmers for their "abundant" profits, and in 2008 proposed the transfer of $30 billion in private pension holdings to the government run social security system. Meanwhile, the net assets of Ms. Kirchner and her late husband increased by 572% since the couple came to power in 2003.

She has allied the country with Venezuela, and has what her government has termed a strategic relationship with communist China. She has hostile relations with Brazil, and this year seized an American military plane.

The Kirchner government is no friend of free speech either. Unions, allied with the government, have prevented the nation's most widely circulated newspapers from being delivered to newsstands.  This week the Argentine government has seized control of newsprint.

The Kirchner regime is now disrupting shipping to and from the Falkland Islands and threatening to cut communications links to those islands.

In response, Prime Minister David Cameron today assured the Falkland Islanders that their right to self-determination is guaranteed:

''Whatever challenges we face in the UK, the British Government's commitment to the security and prosperity of the overseas territories, including the Falklands, remains undiminished.

''So let me be absolutely clear. We will always maintain our commitment to you on any question of sovereignty. Your right to self-determination is the cornerstone of our policy. 

''We will never negotiate on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless you, the Falkland Islanders, so wish. No democracy could ever do otherwise.''

Perhaps Ms. Kirchner feels emboldened because the current American President is contemptuous of America's long-standing special relationship with Great Britain and is likely to side with a fellow Marxist.  It would seem that if Argentina is going to once again seize British territory, it will do so soon, rather than when Obama is gone.  Perhaps an effort to reclaim the Falklands will have to wait until there is an administration in Washington that is friendly with our traditional allies and the cause of freedom and self-determination in the world.  But whenever this matter comes to a head, if Britain must once again liberate the Falkland Islanders, she  should ensure that Argentina pays a memorable price for their outrageous and criminal behavior. 

The lives of thousands of British troops should not be put in danger without lasting regime change in Argentina, reparations, British controlled naval ports, and a military presence on the Argentine mainland until a lawful government is established.

America Betrays Britain in Her Hour of Need

American and British Soldiers Parade Together During World War I

Of all the classless, ignoble and anti-American things this most reprehensible of Presidents has done, his betrayal of America's closest ally in an hour when she may yet again have to defend the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders from Argentina's Marxist cleptocrats, is a new low.

Obama made it clear when he returned the gift of the Churchill bust, that in addition to having no class whatsoever, he rejects all that for which America has stood, shoulder to shoulder, with our closest ally. He rejects America's leadership in the world, our historic defense of freedom and self-determination not only for us, but for all those who seek the torch of freedom. He rejects the principles that forged and supported an unparalleled, special relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill and Thatcher and Reagan.

As we have noted before, there is a natural, organic unity of the English-speaking peoples throughout the world based on their history, language and culture. They share a belief in "fair play," a dedication to individualism, have a strong sense of justice, and a willingness to stand up for the "little guy" and those who have been unfairly treated. These cultural qualities are the foundation for the great hallmarks of the English-speaking world -- Magna Carta, habeas corpus, trial by jury, freedom of speech, common law and America's own Bill of Rights.

We should expect that an American President at war with all that America's founders created, would be at war with those who share our values. But try as he might, no alien, two-bit, community agitator from the corrupt Chicago political machine will ever undo that organic unity.

We have a President who is known throughout the world for apologizing for America. In this small corner, we profoundly apologize to our British readers for the mistake America made in electing this despicable and illegitimate President. We are sure it is a mistake America will correct at the first opportunity.

Et tu, Barack? America betrays Britain in her hour of need

Barack Obama has taken a neutral stance on the Falklands (Photo: Getty)

From The Telegraph
By Toby Young

It was a headline I never expected to read: “US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” Washington has declined to back Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. President Obama’s position is one of strict neutrality, refusing to take sides. According to the State Department:

We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.

Has it come to this? Tony Blair sacrificed his political career and jeopardised Britain’s international standing by making common cause with America in the War on Terror. No matter how often he claims it was because he believed it was “the right thing to do”, we all know what was really going on in his head. He simply didn’t want to break ranks with the United States. The Atlantic alliance has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy since 1941, when Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt joined forces against the Axis powers. Dean Acheson may have declared that Britain had lost an empire and yet to find a role, but successive British Prime Ministers have know what their role is and, by and large, it has been to stand shoulder to shoulder with America, presenting a united front in a series of global conflicts, from the Cold War to the Gulf.

It is not just cynical realpolitik. Our two nations have more in common with each other than they do with anyone else. We share a belief in liberal democracy, in freedom, and it is largely thanks to our willingness to commit ourselves to the defence of those ideals that the world has not been engulfed by fascism, communism or Islamofascism.

For this alliance to survive, both countries must recognise their obligations and, from time to time, that involves one of us setting aside more localised concerns for the sake of the cause. Tony Blair would have preferred it if President Bush had been prepared to wait for a second UN resolution before launching the invasion of Iraq, but he decided that Britain should follow America into battle nevertheless. He recognised that the preservation of the Atlantic alliance had to be prioritised above all else, both for our sake and the sake of the world.

In return, we naturally expect America to side with us when it comes to our own territorial disputes — and this element of quid pro quo was recognised by Ronald Reagan when he backed Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands War. It wasn’t in America’s regional interests to side with us, but Reagan knew the terms of the deal: It was your country, right or wrong. You don’t abandon your closest ally in her hour of need.

So it is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history and insist that we have to fight this battle on our own. Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him? Do the sacrifices Britain has made in defence of the Atlantic alliance count for nought? Who does he think will replace us as America’s steadfast ally when she finds herself embroiled in a territorial dispute of her own — possibly with the very same motley crew of Latin American rabble rousers? Spain? Italy? France? Good luck with that, Mr President.

You’d think that having made his bones in Chicago, Obama would know the Chicago Code of Honour: When someone picks a fight with a friend of yours, they pick a fight with you.

It is at times like this that I remember the words of Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s unofficial emissary to Britain during the Second World War. In our darkest hour, when we stood virtually alone against Hitler, Hopkins was dispatched to Britain to assess our situation. Did we have the will to remain in the fight? Was this a country that America should risk its national interest to defend?

Before Hopkins returned to deliver his verdict to Roosevelt, Lord Beaverbrook gave a small dinner party for him and it was there that he rose to give a toast. “I suppose you wish to know what I am going to say to President Roosevelt on my return,” he said. “Well I am going to quote to you one verse from the Book of Books: ‘Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.’”

Amen.

Argentina Seizes the Central Bank

President Cristina Kirchner wants to pay foreign creditors but doesn't want to use treasury revenues.

From The Wall Street Journal
By Mary Anastasia O'Grady

After a month of wrangling, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner succeeded in sacking central bank President Martin Redrado last week. In his place she named Mercedes Marcó del Pont, a Yale-trained economist who has expressed the view that central bank autonomy ought to be limited.

The opposition howled at the news. Felipe Sola, former governor of Provincia de Buenos Aires, warned that the new bank president "is going to do what the executive decides and they are going to modify the bank charter to justify her doing what the executive tells her."

Of course that would seem to be the point. Mr. Redrado was fired because he refused to turn over $6.6 billion in bank reserves to Mrs. Kirchner, who wants to pay foreign creditors but doesn't want to use treasury revenues. Ms. Marcó del Pont, if she wants to keep her job, will follow the orders of the president.

Read the rest of this entry >>