UPDATE: See Paul Belien’s The Vlaams Belang Goes to Washington about the meeting tomorrow night, and and about why the Vlaams Belang is so successful.

VDARE.COM readers living in the Washington D.C. area may be interested in an upcoming event hosted by the Robert A. Taft Club, featuring Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter, leaders of Europe’s most successful right wing party: the Vlaams Belang.
These men will give a lecture on the subject “Immigration, Multiculturalism, and the End of Free Speech in Europe,” explaining how radical Islam, mass immigration, and suicidal liberalism have proved to be a disastrous combination for Europe, especially for traditional Western values like free speech.

Like American conservatives, the leaders of the Vlaams Belang believe in the free market and traditional morality, but their main issues are stopping immigration and creating an independent homeland for the Flemish people.

Despite the fact that the party is the largest in all of Belgium (winning 25% of the vote in recent elections) no other party will form a coalition with them, effectively locking them out of power. In 2004, the Belgian courts changed the constitution, to ban the Vlaams Belang’s earlier incarnation, the Vlaams Blok, on the grounds they incited racial hatred. Their offense? Printing a pamphlet by a member of Turkish descent criticizing female genital mutilation in Muslim countries.

Yet the Vlaams Belang continues to press on and torment the establishment. Americans concerned about the fate of Europe may want to attend. The event will take place at the Crystal City Marriott on Friday, February 23. 7:00-10:00 PM.
More here.

In order to combat what it calls a “nativist surge” in Western Europe, the U.S. State Department has created a position to coordinate efforts aimed at integrating Muslim immigrants into European society. Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, recently announced the decision:

The growing Muslim presence in Europe is “a fascinating issue and one that the American government is just now trying to get its mind around,” Mr. Fried told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. “It’s a huge problem, we are thinking about it seriously, and we’ve tried to do some intellectual framing-up.”

Farah Pandith, until recently a staffer on the National Security Council (NSC), moved to the State Department last week to head the new effort.

[Europe’s Muslims Find Ally in U.S., By Nicholas KralevWashington Times,February 13, 2007

How exactly any of this falls under the responsibility of the U.S. government is beyond me, but I guess our leaders have decided that destroying Western Civilization in North America isn’t enough, they want to go after it at its source.

Moreover, it’s not as though European elites need the help. Jean-David Levitte, French ambassador to the U.S., seems convinced that all he and his pals need to do is throw more money at social programs. These were his words of wisdom about the 2005 riots in France:

“The unrest that existed in poor neighborhoods had nothing to do with jihad and much to do with social conditions,” he said. “That’s why we have to put the emphasis on improving the social conditions — schools, jobs, better housing — and hopefully all this will trigger better absorption in the social fabric of France of this minority.”

As far as I can tell, the State Department’s main contribution will be American style therapy. One program, for example, brings American Muslims to Europe in order to meet with their coreligionists and try to “break down stereotypes” and end their “self-isolation.” This is necessary, Mr. Friend says, because a:

“process of alienation” is occurring within Europe’s Muslim communities, and that their host countries have “no sense of integration.”

“Europe has to learn to do that,” he said. “You have a weird nativist surge in Western Europe, and a kind of odd panic: Aliens are here, they don’t accept our values, they are a threat to our way of life and turn to radicalism.”

I guess these guys think that they’ve done an absolutely wonderful job “integrating” all those immigrants who were marching in our streets last year waving foreign flags.

The presidential candidacy of Open Borders zealot John McCain appears to have hit a snag in, of all places, his own home state of Arizona. In a recent straw poll of Republican precinct committeemen in the state’s most populous county, McCain finished a distant fourth with only 50 of the 458 votes cast. Mitt Romney came in second with 82 votes, and Newt Gingrich third with 53.

Who won the straw poll? California Congressman Duncan Hunter came in first with 96 votes, and attributed his success to his tough stances on immigration and national security. Hunter, who has a career grade of A+ from the ever reliable Americans for Better Immigration website, has a long history of fighting for serious immigration reform.

Hunter also opposes free trade, and has repeatedly voted against trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO on the grounds they hurt American manufacturing and contribute to our massive trade deficit. Formerly Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, he supports the War in Iraq, but the Vietnam veteran and one time Army Ranger can hardly be called a chicken hawk.

Political observes immediately noticed the immigration connection:

Lyle Tuttle, the Maricopa County Republican Committee chairman, said Hunter’s showing wasn’t expected.

“I was surprised, but when you look at it you see that Duncan is a pretty solid conservative and he should take pride in that he scored so well.”

Tuttle said McCain’s stance on immigration in which he favors amnesty for illegal immigrants hurts with the Phoenix-area Republicans as well as the GOP’s rank and file across Arizona, a state that like California shares a border with Mexico.

“That and his attempt to appeal to the center of the political spectrum have not played with the conservative people here in Arizona,” Tuttle said during a telephone interview.

[Hunter Takes Arizona GOP Straw Poll, North County Times, 1/15/07]

Hunter didn’t fare so well when party officials were asked to name “acceptable presidential candidates,” coming in seventh, but veteran immigration reformer Tom Tancredo came in fourth, and both were ahead of McCain, who finished ninth. McCain did, however, come in first in one category. When asked to name “unacceptable presidential candidates,” 282 named McCain.

Also, when asked to name the reasons for the GOP’s recent electoral defeat, “too lenient on immigration,” came in third, after Iraq (first) and spending (second).

While the Religious Left has played a pretty active and visible role in the current immigration debate, demanding amnesty for illegals and droning on about social justice and loving thy neighbor, the Religious Right has more or less avoided the issue. Perhaps that was for the best. As Allan Wall pointed out in a recent column, even though white evangelicals are far more likely to oppose immigration than pretty much anyone else, evangelical leaders are almost as open borders as their godless rivals.

Now, for better or for worse, some of these self-appointed spokesmen for the Almighty have decided to enter the fray, though it’s a little hard to tell whose side they’re on. According to a recent article in the Washington Times (Christians Enter Illegals Debate – By Charles Hurt, January 8, 2007), several leading Christian conservative groups have teamed up to endorse a proposal for immigration reform:

“In letters sent today and obtained by The Washington Times, Families First on Immigration urges President Bush and leaders of the new Democratic Congress to adopt a grand compromise on the divisive issue that includes strong border security, an amnesty for illegals already here who are relatives of citizens and an end to birthright citizenship.

Former Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer, Deal Hudson of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture and David Keene of the American Conservative Union are among those who have joined forces to chart a new path on immigration reform, an issue that conservative Christians have generally avoided.”

Well, it’s certainly not perfect, but it could have been much worse. I know when I first glanced at the headline, I never expected these guys to advocate anything as meaningful and substantive as abolishing birthright citizenship. Then again, that could always be overturned by the Supreme Court, and we’d still be stuck with the amnestied illegals.

Not surprisingly, evangelicals justified this concession on the grounds that we shouldn’t separate families, but as Enoch Powell said long ago, “there are two directions in which families can be reunited;” so maybe deportation would be the more “family friendly” solution after all.