The US backs down on its position regarding the ICC. Isn't this just lovely. According to this article, Kofi Annan personally stepped in to give us the shaft:

"He urged members to oppose the resolution, questioned the legality of an exemption and warned against dividing the council."

I love the "questioned the legality" part. So the US asserts that it's not under the jurisdiction of this little tribunal put together by the UN, and we're somehow breaking the law? Guess what Kofi: we never signed up to begin with. Just because these muppets see themselves as the sovereigns of the world doesn't mean they can force us to participate in their little charade of a court. Anyone who believes this wouldn't be used as another tool to "keep the US in line" is a damned fool. If we signed on for this, you can bet your arse that George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and half the command structure of the US military would be put on trial with some Hans Blix clone as the judge.

Assuming John Kerry isn't elected and we don't sign the most gross violation of US sovereignty in history, it will be really amusing watching the masters of the ICC try to bring Americans to trial. What are you going to do, Kofi, draft 12 resolutions against us?

A couple of weeks ago we were all up to our eyeballs in Reagan nostalgia. As might be expected, there were cries from some on the right that some liberal journalists were trying to rewrite Reagan's legacy, and in some cases they had a point (I found it interesting that all three of the major network news anchors complained publicly about the over-coverage of Reagan's funeral when we were still in the midst of a month long media orgy over Abu Ghraib.) Now we have Clinton's new book, and to nobody's surprise the media is all over this like a cheap suit. So what are the pundits on the right doing? The same damn thing their counterparts on the left did with Reagan. The fight is now over Clinton's legacy; the only difference is Clinton is still around to tell his side. To paraphrase Jaques Chirac (what the hell am I doing), the pundits on the right missed a great opportunity to keep their mouths shut. All they are doing is adding to Clinton's spotlight, and looking extremely biased and petty in the process. I've heard all day about Clinton "losing it" in a BBC interview, and because of this I was suckered into watching a 40 minute stream of this interview from the BBC website. You know what? It's no big deal. He gets a little pissed off, but he's far from "losing it" in my opinion. Other than those few moments, it's classic Bill Clinton, spinning effortlessly and getting away pretty much unscathed. The fact that some conservatives are all gaga over this interview shows how starved they are for revenge for some of the attacks on Reagan. It's too bad, because had they mostly ignored this whole thing, it would have blown over far sooner, and they would have looked much better in the end.

I'm pretty ambivalent about Bill Clinton. I don't think he was a great president, but I don't share the seething hatred for the guy that many on the right do. If he was that bad, history will figure it out. Trying to out shout the Clinton worshipers in the media just puts more money in Clinton's pocket and more shine on his legacy. Enough already.

What happened to intelligent, civil political debate in America? It was never here.

Kevin, someone? Can you possibly defend/explain non-citizen voting to me? This just COMPLETELY boggles my mind.

Gulp? What's going on???

1°) Clinton backs Bush

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

Wonder how JFK II will welcome this news.


2°) McCain backs Bush

(CBS/AP) Before cheering troops, President Bush got a strong endorsement on Iraq and a boost for his re-election campaign Friday from Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican courted by Democrat John Kerry to be his running mate.

Invited by the White House to accompany Mr. Bush, McCain introduced the president, saying, "he has led this country with moral clarity about the stakes involved and with firm resolve to achieve unconditional victory," reports CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller.

So much for a Kerry/McCain ticket.


3°) Putin backs Bush

ASTANA, Kazakhstan - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence before the Iraq war that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks against the United States and its interests abroad, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Not bad from Pootie-Poot.


Does all this have to do with the realization among The Powers That Be that the whole world is in for the long haul with regards to The War on Terror and that we are better off with a unwavering President who has shown that he's got guts and knows how to handle the crisis? I tend to think so. I read Blackfive, Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Jarvis plus the major media outlets today and, like it or not, I guess we will all have to get used to the fact that Islamism has revealed itself to be the 21st Century Communism. True, they don't field the Warsaw Pact's massive armies. But a dirty bomb in, say, Denver, or a civil war in KSA - for which the current regime would only have itself to blame - can distrupt our lives more than Brezhnevs USSR ever did. Apart from the civilian loss, the world economy could take a devastating blow and all of us could be plunged in a crisis dwarfing the 1929 recession.

Islam is a body being taken over by Islamism. Europe is in very grave peril and can possibly not muster the courage anymore to face its homegrown monster. If you think I'm drooling go read LGF for starters. That is why the US's effort to democratize the ME has become of paramount importance to the Free World. I don't believe Kerry is the person to maintain the momentum in Iraq, and, judging from the above articles, neither do Clinton, Putin or McCain. In 1940 Winston Churchill, upon the RAF's final victory during the Battle of Britain, famously remarked "Never before in the history of mankind have so many depended on the actions of so few". Well, without much exaggeration one could say the welfare of the world's populations dependson those Americans who will vote GOP come November.

Our deepest sympathies to the family of Paul Johnson. At least it seems that the Saudis got the bastards that did this.

I haven't managed to update you on the European elections yet, partly because it's a difficult task: there's no general line. Basically people did not vote for any high-spirited European idea but used the poll to express their disgust with national policies.

Like I said, European politicians fail to make the broader purpose of a USE clear to the public.

Related to all this is the fact the Belgian PM, Guy Verhofstadt, just was screwed by the Brits in his bid to become the next Chairman of the European Commission.

At the back of my mind I must admit that I, being a (nutty) Belgian, would have been somewhat proud to see our PM as the "European President", because that's what it's meant to be(come).

On the other hand, and this sentiment gains the upper hand, I say: Well done Brits! To be sure, Verhofstadt was once my hero. He literally re-crafted the (Flemish) Liberal Party. Now mind you, in years now gone "Liberal" in Europe meant (moderate) rightwing, whereas we call our leftwingers socialists. Remember how we use the term "High School" differently on both sides of the Atlantic. Anyway, Verhofstadt has been an enigma in Belgian politics for almost two decades. He reinvigoured the party while he was only 27, held the very important post of Minister of Budget in 1983 at 33 (!) and distinguished himself by his energy, intellect and ability to inspire people. He has been Prime Minister since 1999, when the ruling Christian Democratic Party CVP succumbed in the wake of a food scandal.

While his first term (1999-2003) could be called a moderate success, he screwed up completely, IMNSHO, during his second term. I don't have the time to elaborate on his tenure. Ministers from his party - formerly mine - did achieve successes in lowering taxes for companies, and providing some sorely needed rectifications in the social status of entrepreneurs and owners of businesses (enabling you to benefit from some SS support after only 1 month if you become invalid, as opposed to three months, improving the social status of co-working wives of self-employed people etc. etc.). In other fields some progress was made too.

Nevertheless, over the past year I grew increasingly frustrated with Mr. Verhofstadt because of the following reasons:

1° Opposing the US-led Operation Iraqi Freedom
2° Allowing a pompous lunatic like our so-called Foreign Minister Louis Michel to bash the US at every conceivable opportunity
3° Ditto for our Secretary of Defense, make that Asshole of Surrender, André Flahaut
4° Waiting much too long to abolish the INSANE so-called "Genocide Law", under which Belgian Maoists filed suit against former President Bush, a.o.
5° At a time when we ought to stand firm within the NATO framework with you, our allies, organize a Defense Top in Brussels with France, Germany and Luxembourg (!) about a separate European Defense

and lastly, and this is what really did it for me:

6° Allow Socialist/Green dominated parliament to pass a law granting immigrants who do not even want to assume our nationality the right to vote in municipal councils.

Upon that folly, I quit Verhofstadts party (and mine for nearly twenty years), the VLD, and joined the Vlaams Blok. Tony Blair is a Socialist, but I would rather vote for him than for my erstwhile "hero".

Hey, Scott posted an excellent article from VDH just before mine. I do not want to appear as claiming too much attention, just thought this was really an important event to follow - there's a fierce battle going on for Head of the EU. So if you haven't, go back and follow the VDH link provided my Mr. Frizzle.

MFBB

This pretty much sums up the war on terror better than anything I've ever read. Read it. If you don't agree, read it again. If you still don't agree, please leave the country at your earliest convenience.

EUROPEAN ELECTIONS – JUNE 13, 2004-06-13

Today was an important day for the European Union, as it is the culmination of a four-day voting process in which about 14,670 candidates all across Europe compete for 732 5-year EP seats. Officially the elections kicked off on Friday in the UK, the Netherlands, Latvia, Malta, the Czech Republic and Ireland. Today, “Super Sunday”, it’s the turn to the remaining 19 countries (the EU currently consists of 25 countries with some 455 million people).

The pic I took this morning, below, shows you a row of Euroweenies awaiting their turn to cast their vote (in Belgium voting is compulsory). Location is a decrepit school in Deux-Acren, Wallonia. Belgium will send 24 MP's to the European Parliament, 15 of which are Flemings and 9 Wallonians.






I mentioned earlier that in general Europeans are rather lukewarm to participate in these elections. I fear that this is still largely due to our politicians, since most of them still focus on national politics, and hence the European Parliament, or the Commission (the EU’s “government”), for that matter, almost invariably attract second-rank personages, who are as yet unable to present the broader population with a sound perspective of the EU’s purpose and why it is, or should be, good for all of us. The lack of vision was apparent in the slogans with which the candidates campaigned: e.g. Flemish Liberal Annemie Neyts with Woman of the World – Woman for Europe, Spirit (green-red nutcases) minister Bert Anciaux with "For a warm Europe".(!)

A phenomenon that has been marring national elections throughout Europe for the last ten years is the emergence of public showbiz figures, TV anchors, sports stars etc… in politics. Well, this time it looks like the trend has moved to the European scene. If you Americans were a trifle embarrassed with Miz Carey showing up during the California Recall, well, don’t bother, since we Europeans had our own Dolly Buster, a Czech porn star. At first you’d think that this is evened out by the candidacy of her compatriot Vladimir Remek, former Czech astronaut… only the asshat is coming up on the KSCM list, the Czech Communists. Estonia brings up supermodel Carmen Kass, in France the Chairman of Radio France, Jean-Marie Cavada, has stepped down to be able to participate in the elections on UDF’s list – Chirac’s party. And in Italy, popular RAI journalist Lilli Gruber appears on Romano Prodi’s cartel list. Slovenia sport a.o. a soccer champion. In Poland Lech Walesa's son, Jaroslav Walesa, bids for a seat in the EP too, claiming to be a "real liberal". Ouch.

So up until now we have the fuzzy agenda of Europes traditional parties, the presence of high-profile entertainment figures on the lists… are there any other striking characteristics? Well, there seem to be. I mentioned that in six countries elections took place on Friday already. It looks like the parties that inisisted on supporting the US’s policy in Iraq are being punished, given the results of the polls in the UK and The Netherlands. The European public simply does not comprehend that, again, America is fighting its wars, since an American success in Iraq – imposing democracy and encourage it to spread to the neighbouring countires – will in time positively affect the ever increasing flood of malcontent backward Muslim immigrants to the European nannystates. Europeans have generally become absolute wimps, self-possessed, snobby, "sophisticated" (or so they kid themselves), and preoccupied mainly with their social security, wages, tan, holidays or sex life. If you ask me, it will have to become much worse before it gets better.

So I fear that the Parti Socialiste do-gooders, some of whom are depîcted below, are gonna gain again. These are the fine gentlemen who turned Wallonia into an impoverished region where ONE-IN-THREE of the "active" persons is in some kind of state service. I myself voted for the Front National, a Wallonian rightwing party with an anti-immigration agenda. So did my wife.






Results are to be expected in Brussels at 7pm local time, that would early afternoon for you Mainers. I’ll keep you updated.


UPDATE:

Not much to say yet, except that according to the most recent poll results in Belgium, in Flanders the Vlaams Blok gains strong. This is not so incongruous as it seems given my earlier assessment of the Left gaining decisively the upper hand. First of all, the term "gaining strong" in our country does NOT mean a landslide victory - positions are too entrenched and the "swing voter" is not so important as he is in The States. The Vlaams Blok is merely consolidating its position, and the other parties will keep isolating it by vowing never to cooperate with it. Secondly, Iraq was not an issue in Belgium, as it was in the UK, Poland or The Netherlands, since our government chose not to support the US. If the leading party in Belgium, the VLD, is punished, it's mainly because it allowed the others to pass legislation that grants immigrants who refuse to assume our nationality or to assimilate, the right to vote in municipal councils.

In a couple of hours I'll try to give the broader European picture.

Hey you jerks out there, don't wanna keep annoying you but they leave me no choice:

BELGIUM IS LAUNCH PAD FOR TERRORISTS


"The report(from the Belgian Parliament's intelligence committee) said most of the recruits were second and even third generation immigrants, chiefly from North Africa, who appeared to have rejected the Belgian way of life, even though Belgium, like neighbouring Holland, had tried to serve as a model of tolerant integration.

The report concluded that Belgium had become "a logistical support base" for terrorist groups abroad - favoured by bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group GIA, the Wabahi Tabligh movement and the Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood.

The FBI complained bitterly after September 11 that the Belgian judiciary was withholding key information needed to track down al-Qa'eda activists before the intelligence leads turned cold.

It has since come to light that leading terrorists have been travelling the world on Belgian passports, either stolen or sold by corrupt officials.

One of the killers of Gen Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, carried Belgian documents.

Filip Deman, a leader of the growing anti-immigrant Vlaams Blok movement and a member of the parliamentary investigation, said Belgium's elite coalitions had been brushing the Muslim problem under the carpet for years.

He said: "It was taboo to even talk about it under our code of political correctness, but this report cannot be ignored.""

Never heard about this report in our press. Figure not much was done with it.

But what should I care, soon the Vlaams Blok and its members are going to be outlawed for being racists...

MFBB

The final nail in the coffin of the "No War for Oil" argument.

Joining the Reagan Frenzy

Well, it seems I spoke a little to soon in my earlier comments about the press keeping things classy in regards to Ronald Reagan. The spinfest has begun, with both sides trying to out shout the other so they can put their stamp, or smear as the case may be, on the Reagan legacy. While many on the right are getting pretty heated up about the attempts to degrade Reagan's place in history, I see this as inevitable. In a society as politically polarized as America's is, it is impossible to have a great impact on the world and not infuriate around 50% of the population in the process. Anyone who actually manages to influence real change, as Reagan did, is going to become a demon to half of us.

Is all this debate about a dead president important? You bet it is. While many will write off the back and forth in the media as simple partisan background noise, what's happening here is a struggle to write history. I know first hand how important this is, because for a long time I took as fact many of the things that Reagan's opponents had forced into the public consciousness. Years ago I took for granted that Reagan was pretty stupid, that he personally said it was OK to consider ketchup as a vegetable on school lunch menus, that he was just fine with $500 toilet seats for the military, and that he was seriously outclassed by the wily Gorbachev in their many summit meetings. I specifically remember that last point being pounded home in a PBS documentary. The line went something like this: "a study in contrasts; the sophisticated, worldly Gorbachev, and the awkward bumbling Reagan." Combined with some well edited shots of Reagan looking confused and Gorbachev looking relaxed and confident, that was enough to convince a fairly intelligent 18 year old that the 40th president wasn't all he was cracked up to be. Unfortunately, I had been duped, and it took a lot of years for me to figure it out. When I was older, I caught another documentary on Reagan and Gorbachev on the History Channel. This one relied very heavily on actual interviews with the people involved in the summit meetings (imagine that) rather than an omnipotent voice over to help you to understand what was going on. I was stunned to hear the Russian generals state over and over how they felt as if Reagan took control of the meetings from the very start and that Gorbachev never seemed to get his footing. They also admitted that they thought Jimmy Carter was a complete joke, and that they toyed with him by pretending to be interested in his disarmament ideas just to get him to concede them whatever they wanted. When Reagan was elected, they knew the jig was up.

As with any account of history, there is more than one side to the Reagan legacy. Many of Reagan's critics bring up sound points: Were there illegal dealings in the Iran contra scandal? It's likely there were. Was Reagan slipping a little towards the end of his second term? Maybe. Did he delegate important decisions that he should have been more involved in? Perhaps. These things should be debated and investigated, because we can't learn from our mistakes if we can't figure out if they were ever made or not. But let's not be so petty that we can't accept simple, provable fact. The desperation on the part of some to deny Reagan credit for ending the cold war, among other things, is simply laughable. He did it. There were cameras. There are documents. Accept it and move on. There's plenty not to like about Ronald Reagan, or anyone else for that matter, without having to make things up.

How many men have had a song titled "The Man Who Made Those Pussyfooters and Weaklings Feel Ashamed." written about him by people from a country he helped free?

Ronald Reagan did.

Now THIS is art. I bought this fine triple portrait at a discount store in the early 90's for $5. It was one of about 200 in the box. I know I could get at least $3.50 for it now. This wonderful Sally Evans pastel was very useful for confusing crunchy art students who saw it in my apartment when I was in art school in the early 90's. Since then it has adorned the men's room at Artifact, my former company in Atlanta, GA. It now resides in my permanent collection of high art in my office.

It's nice to see that Reagan's legacy seems to be surviving the onslaught to make him look like he was an inept fool while in The White House. There's a lot of people who's ideological universes don't make sense with an intelligent Ronald Reagan in existence. As for me, I think he is one of the best examples of the right man at the right time in American history.

Art.

George Tenet resigns. Not that you can blame all of the bad things that have happened on his watch on him, but this has been a long time coming. You have to think there was more than a little suggestion going on within the Bush admin to get Tenet out before the election. I'll bet this guy's blood pressure drops 80 points after he is officially out.

Abolish War

My family and I went to our local Memorial Day parade in Brunswick, Maine on Monday. In addition to the usual military representatives, high school bands, local clubs, etc. marching in the parade, there was one float titled "Peace is Patriotic." I couldn't tell who the sponsor of the float was, but suffice it to say it was some kind of peace activist organization. They were all wearing black, and their float consisted of a black flatbed covered in a grid of white crosses, simulating a cemetery. While I was sort of amused by the cone of silence that overcame the crowd as the float passed by (pretty much every other float was getting at least polite applause) I really didn't have much of a problem with this float. They were displaying the American flag, which surprised me, and they refrained from the immature "Bush is Hitler" type slogans. A message of peace doesn't seem contradictory to the celebration of Memorial Day, even if these folks were pushing their agenda as opposed to honoring the true spirit of the day.

One thing that did bother me (you knew there had to be something) was a banner that some of the members of this group carried. Written on the banner were the words "Abolish War." The more I thought about it, the more this irritated me. Just what the hell does "Abolish War" mean anyway? Do these people really think that is some kind of solution? That's kind of like saying "make happiness mandatory." Nice thought, but completely outside of reality, and not a solution to anything. (The question comes to mind that if you pass a law abolishing war, and someone breaks it, how do you enforce the law? Perhaps a UN resolution?)

I don't know too many people who actually like war. While I realize political slogans are often oversimplified for impact, it's scary to think there are people out there that vote who think that the world is so simple that you can just be completely passive and all of the evil bastards around the globe will have a revelation and give up their Jihads based on your fine example. Pacifism is nice for winning little moral victories inside your own head, but historically its track record for encouraging evil is frightening. Abolish war? Let's abolish stupidity first.

------------------

This is what you get when you work a 14 hour day and are too wired to sleep. Hopefully I won't regret this in the morning...

Ok, normally I don't elaborate this long on a given subject but since the following upset me very much at the time it happened I thought I'd answer these questions from Larry:

1.)Is this devastation of free speech indicative of your surrounding EU members?

Well, in May 2002 there was this Dutch rightwing politican Pim Fortuyn who dared say that The Netherlands were "full" (having absorbed more than its share of non-integrating immigrants and with 16,000,000 people crammed on 36,000 square kloms, I can understand that).


He was shot dead by Volkert Van Der Graaff, a 32-year old Radical Green-Left activist.

"Fortuyn, 54, was shot in the head and chest at least three times at close range at 6 p.m. Monday as he was leaving a radio station in Hilversum, 20 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of Amsterdam."

"Fortuyn, an openly gay former TV analyst, was a plain-speaking politician who targeted fears over immigration. Saying that the Netherlands was "full up," he criticized Muslims for not embracing Dutch culture."

Members of Fortuyn's party apparently had reason to be afraid too.

Okay, it's old news now, but it is says a lot of the way things have become for anyone who dares challenge the established views of the politically correct elites. But slowly, times are changing: France recently banned some extremsit clerics, Denmark put legislation into effect restricting the influx of radical Imams, and the Dutch will expel 26,000 illegals over the coming three years (it really, really has become too bad over there). From what I see, it's rather Belgium that, as so often, is at the tail of the movement to address the immigrant problem in a thorough way.


2.) Michael- I find this information mind-boggling.
Stephen Pollard's site mentioned the Vlaams Blok(VB)party advocates secession from Belgium and the establishment of a Republic of Flanders...Could you elaborate a little on that?
Where will conservatives seek refuge when sharia law is instituted if secession is not realized?

Well, I'm glad you bring that one up Larry. It is indeed true that the Vlaams Blok advocates nothing less than the breakup of Belgium as a nation and the creation of an independent Flanders. To be sure, I am against that. We are already so small a country, why divide it even further? It is however important to consider their rationale for such a bold claim. Flanders, the northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, DOES transfer huge sums of Social Security money to sick brother Wallonia, the southern, French-speaking, purely socialist run part of Belgium. I think the amount per 4-person household has been calculated as being something in the neighborhood of the price of a small family car, say a Ford Orion, every four years.

Basically Flanders keeps Wallonia afloat through an imbalanced redistribution of federal funds. The federal government is raking in much more from Flanders than it does from Wallonia and then diverts it mostly to Wallonia - small wonder, in Wallonia 1 active person in three "works" for the state, the other two depend on social security. Marc Dutroux, this horrible child molester and murderer, who was just dandy, had somehow managed to get himself declared unfit for work and got 80,000 Belgian francs per month (some 2,000 US$) from Social Security - NOT KIDDING!!!

Still I think breaking up Belgium would be a bad idea. You might ask why I have joined the Vlaams Blok. Well, because it was the only party that vehemently OPPOSED granting the right to vote for municipal councils to non-Belgian immigrants - read the hundreds of thousands of Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians and Turks who live here since decades but of whom a majority still does not speak our language, of whom many don't abide by our laws (slaughtering animals at home during Ramadan, e.g., although law says they should do it in one of the designated slaughterhouses etc...).

For me the point about the voting right is right now much more important than the Vlaams Blok's unrealistic claim that Belgium should cease to exist - it will never happen, a grand majority of Belgians like it just as it is.

I ran across this today, and I feel compelled to make an announcement: McDonald's isn't bad. Their food isn't really even bad for you, believe it or not. Like so many other things demonized as being "bad" (fast food, TV, video games, etc.) by those who seek to remove all fun from life, it is the excessive consumption of said item that can lead to problems. You will die faster on an all broccoli diet than you will on an all Big Mac diet, so where is the anti broccoli movement? The fact that the children in this story were denied a little treat just so a few pompous asses could proudly display their moral superiority is particularly infuriating. I suppose simply not accepting the food vouchers of using them to purchase a salad simply wasn't acceptable. Better to force everyone to accept your great wisdom than to allow people to make their own choices.

Yeah, I know, this isn't exactly a world changing event, but you see this kind of thought, or lack thereof, all the time and it's total bullshit. As someone wise once said, it's amazing how many people see democracy as a way to turn their own personal prejudices into laws.

Larry F. wrote: “Michael, what are the chances of you starting your own "talk-radio" show in Flanders?”

Zilch Larry. The following is a story about a fellow who had a talk-radio show of his own (scroll down till you get to "Kritishe talkshow afgevoerd"). I’m talking about Jurgen Verstrepen, whose show “Zwart of Wit” (Black or White) was broadcast every Sunday afternoon on Radio Contact and LibertyTV. The motto of his talkshow was “Freedom of Speech by all means”. The show gave, a.o., a voice to the many disgruntled Belgians living in Brussels or Antwerp neighborhoods with a majority of foreigners. Sometime in February, Radio Contact decided not to broadcast the show anymore, and LibertyTV stated that it does want to cooperate further with Mr. Verstrepen, but only when non-political issues are treated. I might add that Mr. verstrepen’s talkshow’s format followed a pattern which seems to be popular in the States: a multitude of telephonic interventions by listeners, followed by anitmated studio discussions with a political panel.

This is the second time that Mr. Verstrepen’s voice is stifled: the previous version of his show, broadcast on Kanaal2 and TopRadio, was suspended in 2001. Here’s a comment on that by NRC Handelsblad, which is a widely respected Dutch newspaper (yes, the news was important enough to be reported in The Netherlands): “But Verstrepen also writes political commentaries on an Internet newssite. Or rather: wrote. Because he’s stopped with that just lately. There was pressure on him, he says, by the Prime Minister’s circle. If Verstrepen should continue with his “shitty business in those columns”, so he was assured by left and right, then “the Prime Minister would make sure not a single political authority would appear in his TV show”.

Anyway, Mr. Verstrepen apparently had to shut up for introducing people on a radio show who dared to say that immigrants should assimilate and that if not they could return. Somewhere in March Mr. Verstrepen joined the Vlaams Blok, a Flemish nationalistic party which the political establishment over here demonises as “extreme right” but which has an agenda that has actually quite a few similarities to the one of the Republican Party in the States. Some of you may remember that I actually joined the Vlaams Blok back in February, because all other parties had agreed to grant the right to non-Belgian immigrants to vote in municipal elections (which implies that if you happen to live as a Belgian in a neighbourhood with a majority of, say, Moroccans or Tunisians, you’re likely to see your tax euros go to a new mosque rather than to that desperately needed municipal playground.






The photo shows him during the press-conference, where he was sided by Filip Dewinter and Frank Vanhecke, leading figures of the Vlaams Blok. Behind him you can just make out part of the slogan “13 juni, een kwestie van vrije meningsuiting” (June 13, a matter of Free Speech), the motto under which the Vlaams Blok participates in the upcoming June 13 European elections.

But alas, Mr. Verstrepen again had no luck. Hardly had he joined the ranks of the Vlaams Blok, or, surprise: the Court of Appeal in Ghent ruled that the Vlaams Blok was a racist organization (arrest from April 2004). To be sure, the Vlaams Blok welcomes any immigrant who wants to integrate in our society, i.e. that he/she learns our language, behaves like agood citizen and contributes to our wealth. Non-assimilating ones should return or stay home, simply put. Anyway, for having had the audacity to say that, the Vlaams Blok was rewarded with the (heavy) fining of three of its supporting organizations, and steps are now being taken to make the distribution of Party publications, leaflets etc… via the Belgian Postal System impossible. In a later stadium the financing of the Party by the state (in Belgium political parties receive a donation from the state) will be suspended – although that may take some years yet. Find out more about the story on Stephen Pollard's blog: I've seen the future: it's scary and it's Belgian. Recommended reading.

Interesting to note that the Vlaams Blok threatens to be declared a criminal organization while the Antwerp-based Arab European League, led by former Hezbollah member Dyab Abu Jahjah, can freely threaten the Antwerp Jewish-owned Diamond Sector with bomb attacks by Hamas.

They also wanted to get a militant Pakistani cleric with al-Qaeda ties to Antwerp to give a speech, but luckily the guy intended to visit The Netherlands first. As could be expected the Dutch government refused the fucker a visa, upon which the Belgian government was somehow able to muster sufficient courage to do the same. But only barely. Hear the AEL whine about the affair over here.

This is Belgium Larry. No, I'm not gonna start a radio talk show.