the __earthinc

Disgraceful thugs embarrassing the country:

Barnhart and his wife were asleep at 2am when there was pounding on the door and male voices shouting in Bahasa Malaysia.

Fearing an attack or robbery, Barnhart told the men to go away or he would call the police.

One of the voices, speaking in English, identified the group of men as Islamic Affairs Department officers and ordered him to open the door immediately.

“I positioned myself ready to fight and partly blocking the door so I could defend myself and my wife if anything were to happen.

“Then I opened the door to find six men in my face,” said Barnhart.

Barnhart said the men wore blue jackets with the department’s crest on the breast pockets, with one of them producing an authority card.

He claimed there were no police officers with the six men.

Barnhart said one of the men yelled at him, asking how many people were in the apartment and said: “You are Muslim, we are coming in.”

“I told them we were Christians and they were not to come in. They then demanded to inspect the apartment.

“They were threatening and aggressive. Again I said no,” he said.

He said the men then demanded to see his “woman”.

I say we need to fight these thugs and take them down before they infringe our rights further.

Talking about defending liberty, I wonder, if a person tried to violate my property in the name of moral policing, and I killed the person while trying to defend my property, who would win in a court? The intruding moral police or a common person defending his rights?

p/s – The Cato Institute reports that there’s a growing libertarian influence in the United States. At the Economist (via):

AMERICA may be the land of the free, but Americans who favour both economic and social freedom have no political home. The Republican Party espouses economic freedom—ie, low taxes and minimal regulation—but is less keen on sexual liberation. The Democratic Party champions the right of homosexuals to do their thing without government interference, but not businesspeople. Libertarian voters have an unhappy choice. Assuming they opt for one of the two main parties, they can vote to kick the state out of the bedroom, or the boardroom, but not both.

In a new study from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, David Boaz and David Kirby argue that libertarians form perhaps the largest block of swing voters. Counting them is hard, since few Americans are familiar with the term “libertarian”. Mr Boaz and Mr Kirby count those who agree that “government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses”, that government, rather than promoting traditional values, “should not favour any particular set of values”, and that “the federal government has too much power”. Using data from Gallup polls, they found that, in 2005, 13% of the voting-age population shared all three views, up from 9% in 2002.

Check this paragraph:

When Republicans win elections, it is because they manage to pull together an alliance between social conservatives and libertarians. But, as Ryan Sager put it in “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party”: “[L]ibertarians have always tended to see social conservatives as rubes ready to thump nonbelievers on the head with the Bible first chance they get, and social conservatives have always tended to see libertarians as dope-smoking devil-worshippers.”

In local context, this probably applicable to the UMNO-PAS tug-of-war.