How Do You Say, "To H311 With You" in Arabic?

Hmmmm. Basics.

I, Sal, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Very well. Here we go.

As Americans - there are a few very clear, precise lines that we must defend. We are not a nation based on ethnicity or long history. No, we are a nation based on ideas - ideas that bind us together with a contract founded on the best concepts of The Enlightenment.

If we throw away those things that bind us together - then in short order our nation will no longer exist - as it will have broken its contract with itself and will have no reason to exist. Not exist, BTW, as in break up. Something worth defending, methinks.

One concept that is part of that foundation is not unique to the USA - as it is in general a core concept of any modern society - but it exists almost in its purest form here, by design. It is freedom of speech, as outlined in part of said contract; Ref a.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Some may quibble, but I won't. Too many people have given too much to try to keep the boot off the neck of free will for the very short time in human history is has been off. If you don't like me when I get fussy, please stop reading now and go away and read something else and come back tomorrow.

These retrograde forces are so intellectually stunted and insecure they cannot handle freedom - and they are not getting shy about it. It threatens their culture - one that cannot survive the follow on question. One that is so fragile, that it cannot it can only emote - devoid as it is of any type of introspection.

This that part of the world we have spent hundreds of billions and thousands of lives to try to help bind them to the modern world. A modern world that they have contributed nothing to of any substance. Without the West, they would have nothing but their backwardness.

Success? Well ... not content to wallow in their own ignorance - they want to pull everyone back in to their sty. 

One of the world’s most influential Muslims is now calling on the United Nations – in light of the YouTube movie blamed for violent protests across the Mideast – to impose international restrictions on free speech, criminalizing any statement that impugns Islam. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, a professor at King Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia, is a member of several international organizations, including the Centre for Studying the Aims of Sharia in the U.K., as well as serving as the vice chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars. ... In a public declaration issued to several Islamic bodies, including the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, one of the largest Muslim mosques in the D.C. metro area and the U.S., bin Bayyah called upon “people of reason and understanding” to put a legal stop to statements that would offend Muslims and thereby threaten world peace. “We ask everyone to ponder the ramifications of provoking the feelings of over one billion people by a small party of people who desires not to seek peace nor fraternity between members of humanity,” bin Bayyah wrote. “This poses a threat to world peace with no tangible benefit realized. Is it not necessary in today’s world for the United Nations to issue a resolution criminalizing the impingement of religious symbols? We request all religious and political authorities, as well as people of reason to join us in putting a stop to this futility that benefits no one.”

You insecure little Saudi man. To h311 with you.

In the wake of anti-America protests in many parts of the world over an anti-Islam film, the US needs to rethink about its concept of free speech, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said. “It is not good enough to say it’s free speech, it should be allowed. I think if this does provoke action against American citizens or Americans anywhere else in the world, then maybe we do need to rethink how much freedom is OK,” Hina told CNN in an interview. “Is freedom to the extent of harming lives also OK? So, I think we need to find a way to manage this in a civilised manner in trying to bring all of our, you know, all of our minds together,” Hina said. “I think what we need is more tolerance for each other’s views. What we need is to be able to give mutual space for us to be able to demonstrate what is culturally, religiously important to us and not to hold each other, not to judge each other for that. “To give that space and to be able to create some space for ourselves. And really we have to be sensitive to religious sensitivities,” she said.

You pathetic Pakistani woman. To h311 with you.

We need to say the same thing - in English will do - to our fellow Americans who also don't get it.

In fact, so grave is mockery of the prophet considered, that the cleric – Mohammad Qatanani, who leads one of the largest mosques in New Jersey – even believes free speech that criticizes Islam poses a national security threat to the U.S. and that those responsible should be investigated by the Department of Homeland Security. “We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.” Qatanani said he thinks agitators who slander Islam, or, more specifically, the Prophet Muhammad, incite violence and hence, pose a national security risk that threatens the safety of Americans at home and abroad. Thus, America should disregard its First Amendment as it is typically applied and instead act in accordance with sharia law for the ultimate “good” of society.

Mohammad (peas be upon you) - to h311 with you. Are you speaking out on behalf of the filth that comes out about Jews? Hindus? Christians? No you're not. Therefor, you are just practicing soft jihad. So, to h311 with you. 

Now that I have emoted a bit of my own ... some higher brain function for you. First, VDH;

Apparently leaders of the Islamic world present a non-negotiable demand to the West that they be given a blank check for their governments to defame Jews, Christians, and Americans, but the United States must condemn any private individual who, quite apart from the knowledge of the U.S. government, does the same to Muslims. That is the issue, and anything less than an unapologetic defense of free speech is not only a betrayal of our Constitution, but a very dangerous concession that will only incite more violence in the near future. Unfortunately, Western hedging, appeasement, and apologies to theocrats and authoritarians have never won gratitude, but instead such magnanimity is seen as either weakness to be exploited or proof all along that the apologizer admits culpability and will do so again in the future — a fact well known to history’s thugs, big and small, whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Then L. Gordon Crovitz;

Instead of seeking to censor the video or apologizing, the White House should be reminding the world that free speech, even when tasteless or hateful, is an American right. The U.S. should be encouraging the new governments in the Middle East to value free speech. In contrast to the U.S. abandonment of free speech, tiny Denmark refused to apologize for the satirical cartoons of Muhammad that ran in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, which provoked rioting in many countries. Indeed, in the aftermath of the YouTube video, France has been truer to free speech than has the U.S. A French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, responded to the video controversy by running more cartoons of Muhammad. Its editor, Stephane Charbonnier, told the German magazine Der Spiegel: "We publish caricatures every week, but people only describe them as declarations of war when it's about the person of the prophet or radical Islam." French authorities offered protection to the magazine before it went to press. "Of all publications, our magazine, which mocks the police at every opportunity, is now protected by it," Mr. Charbonnier says. "Which only goes to show that freedom of speech is protected in our country." He pledges to keep satirizing Catholics, Jews and Muslims. Meanwhile, France temporarily closed its embassies and schools in 20 countries when the magazine came out. A silver lining to this controversy is how many people, apparently mostly Muslims themselves, used the online medium in a humorous way to make the point that Islamic fundamentalists are a minority of the religion. Under a hashtag on Twitter that Newsweek created for its cover story, #MuslimRage, they tweeted laugh lines for what leads to "Muslim Rage":

Let me see ... what can I do to just throw some salt in to all this ... something cliche ... oh wait - here we go.

Wait .... we need more. Somewhere there is a joke here.