Being a minarcho-populist ethnopluralist of the far right, I don't commonly identify with living liberals. Geert Wilders is an exception. He is on trial for his conscientious and principled stand against the Islamification of his country. He is also, as many on the alternative right have mentioned, a modern liberal, more or less.
According to some, his flatfooted support of Israel makes him too pro-semitic, his loyalties too divided. I don't actually know if he supports monetary and/or military aid for Israel. If not - if he stops at moral support - then I am right with him. Israel - founded on "stolen land" like any country, with a government often said to be laden with power-hungry bastards like any country, whose military upsets pacifists like any country - has a right to exist like any country. I'm not the slightest bit shy about declaring that. (I certainly do stop short of material support for Israel; I am against all foreign aid.)
He is a proponent and defender of gay rights, women's right, and the Netherlands' welfare state. According to some, this makes him too much of a squishy leftist to deserve our support.
I say nonsense. The bodies politic of the West are easily broad enough to accommodate honest liberals as well as a variety of rightists. I say "honest liberal" because that's what Wilders is - he is straightforward about his belief that encroaching Islam and Third World birthrates threaten a very Dutch conception of freedom. That this conception doesn't equate one-to-one with a Anglo-Saxon minarchist conception is of little matter. Gays and women are among the broad variety of people who would suffer under Islam; Wilders chooses to protect them for the same reason he chooses to fight Islam in the first place - his conscience.
Only a very dishonest liberal (or more accurately, a multiculturalist and probably an extreme leftist) would say Islamification is compatible with liberal (or conservative) Western values. If by considering Wilders my ally, I am a liberal by association, so be it.
Today I am a pro-Western, anti-PC, blood-and-soil liberal.
Several other writers have written on the subject as well:
Dennis Mangan (interesting discussion of Rousseau-style enlightenment liberalism versus Burke-style enlightenment liberalism versus modern "liberalism" in the comments thread)