One Mans Opinion 10/31/2010
By Dewaine Shoulders

It's down to the wire.

Tuesday, November 2nd is the true beginning of the New American Revolution. And we the people need to remember that just like the patriots of old, we are fighting for our freedom from tyranny. This time it's not fighting a king and some Redcoats from across the pond, but a would be king that sits in judgment over all of us. He and his cronies pass legislation without reading the bills, and force higher taxes upon us all.

The Tea Party began as a small group of people who came together to say we're 'Taxed Enough Already!' But now, millions of our fellow Americans are coming together to tell Washington D.C. to stop the madness!

Are you one of those Tea Party People? Are you ready to do your part in waging this new war against socialism and higher taxes?

If not, you still have time to join!

But regardless of whether you are a Tea Party supporter or not, you still have the civic duty to attend to on Tuesday. Exercise your right to vote!

Otherwise, the socialist machine in Washington will continue to tax us and spend money that this nation does not have... And slowly crippling the economy of not only America, but the entire world.

We don't want to see another Great Depression come around. And we sure don't want people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and the other thieves in our nations capital to continue spending us into oblivion.

So, do the right thing... VOTE!

Before it's too late to change the course this nation is on.
But that's just my opinion, I could be right!

One Mans Opinion 10/30/2010
by Dewaine Shoulders

Usually I don't like to do this, but this one made me laugh. This email was sent to me by a friend, and I'm glad she sent it. Considering that Tuesday is mid-term election day, this should give you a moment of pause.

These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place...
______________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
______________________________ ______________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
______________________________ _____________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, "isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
doesn't know about it until the next morning?"
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
______________________________ ______
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
______________________________ _____________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you sh---ing me?
______________________________ ___________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
______________________________ ______________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes..
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney.
Can I get a new attorney?
______________________________ ______________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
______________________________ ______________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about 20, medium height, and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
______________________________ _______
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
______________________________ ___________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK?
What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________ ___________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And, Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
______________________________ ______________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________ ________
And the best for last:

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No .
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

And that my friends is a good example why, most politicians in our government and courts are lawyers and our nation is so screwed up.

I couldn't have said it better myself!
Be sure to tune in to the show on Sunday.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/palinpromotions

One Mans Opinion 10/26/2010
By Dewaine Shoulders

Another wild day on The View (or how liberals get away with saying anything).

Warning: foul language is involved... Read at your own risk!!!

Well, on the ABC daytime gabfest called The View, Joy (Joyless) Behar has done it again! She has taken another conservative and called them something that would make big news if it were a conservative were saying the same things about a liberal. It would be labeled hate speech, bigotry, some kind of phobia (probably progressivephobia) and would be blasted across every TV screen in the lamestream media's collective propaganda machine.

But when a liberal says it about a conservative, it's called Freedom of Speech and expressing an opinion.

Here's the set-up: The ladies (and I use that term loosely, as I see only one lady on the show, and her name is Elisabeth Hasselbeck) of The View were discussing Sharron Angle and Harry Reid's tight race in Nevada.

The following was a part of the conversation (last warning - the views expressed here are salty at best).

JOY BEHAR: You know what I'd like to see her do? I'd like to see her do this ad in the south Bronx. Come here, bitch! Come to New York and do it.

SHERRI SHEPHERD: And we're praying for you. We're praying for you.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Even Joy is praying for her.

BEHAR: I am not praying for her. I'm telling you right now. She's going to Hell.

SHEPHERD: I'm praying for everybody. No, I'm praying that her heart gets changed.

BEHAR: She's going to Hell, this bitch.

SHEPHERD: I'm praying that Sharron Angle's heart gets changed. She's not going to Hell!


Barbara Walters just sat there and grinned. Like she's surprised at what came out of Joyless Behar's hateful mouth.

Had Elisabeth Hasselbeck said this about a democrat/liberal... Let's say Nancy Pelosi, Behar and company would have demanded an apology immediately and the liberals would be calling for Hasselbeck to be fired, drawn and quartered and forced to have her lips stitched shut so she'd never utter another foul thing against anyone ever again.

But when the likes of unfunny comedian/talk show clown Joyless Behar says something like that about a republican/conservative, you can hear the crickets chirping.

This is the reason Political Correctness is a one way street. The liberals can say anything they want without fear of reprisal, but God forbid a conservative utter the slightest inkling of something like what Behar said toward someone on the left. Congressional committees would be formed to look into the matter. ABC would lose their broadcasting license if Hasselbeck wasn't immediately let go. Boycotts and riots in the street... You get my point.

First of all, Joyless Behar is a complete whacko. She is a nobody trying to make a name for herself, and doing it the old fashioned way... Spitting in the eye of conservatives and most of America. And if I were Sharron Angle, I'd just smile and say, "Well, you must consider the source. The woman has no shame, nor any brains!"

Then, of course, Sharron Angle would then be labeled a hatemonger, and Nevada would sink into the bowels of hell.

See how that works?

Sharron Angle should issue a statement calling out Ms. Behar's comments and call for an immediate apology. And if she doesn't get it, then we the people should do what many on the left already do... Call for a boycott! Yes, an old-fashioned boycott of The View, ABC, Walt Disney (the parent company of ABC) and any sponsors that continue to air ads on the network.

Too extreme? Maybe?

But since the left seems to do it, why can't we turn the tables and show them how stupid their little boycotts are. But I believe that most thinking people don't watch The View, and if they do, it's for Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and not Whoopi, Sherry, Barbara and especially Joyless!

But that's just my opinion, I could be right!

One Mans Opinion 10/22/2010
By Dewaine Shoulders

The Day After

Yesterday, in what created a firestorm at NPR, Juan Williams was summarily fired after saying that Muslims, dressed in Muslim attire getting on a plane with him, makes him nervous. He was being honest in his assessment. It wasn't a bigoted statement... It is the new normal. I honestly can say that if I were sitting on a plane and a group of Muslims, dressed in their Muslim attire, boarded the plane, I would be getting off of it in a hurry! It's not a bigoted statement I'm making; it's reality!

Considering the amount of terrorists acts committed by Muslim extremists in the past 20 years or so, it would be rather stupid of me to want to continue sitting on a plane with potential terrorists. Political Correctness be damned! I'm looking out for my life.

So, when NPR decided to sever ties with Juan Williams, it got me to thinking that NPR is a liberal radio network, and they threw a fellow liberal under the bus in the name of Political Correctness. I believe his First Amendment rights were violated by NPR, and they should be investigated for discrimination and a violation of his right to free speech.

And I think it's time that NPR and PBS were cut off from the public funds they get from Washington D.C. Why is our tax dollars being spent on their liberal agenda anyway? It's time for the government to cut them loose and let them compete in the marketplace of ideas. But since NPR is a liberal/progressive broadcasting network, I fear that they are anti-capitalism as well, thus they couldn't make it in the real world without help from Uncle Sam. They would go down in flames just like Air America did; only faster.

Juan Williams is yet another victim of Political Correctness run amok.

A couple of weeks ago, Rick Sanchez was fired from CNN after calling Jon Stewart a bigot. Now, considering that Rick Sanchez had been Jew-bashing, and actually accusing CNN of being owned and operated by Jews, CNN officially fired him for calling John Stewart a bigot? It seems the bigot there was Mr. Sanchez. Was CNN justified for firing Rick Sanchez? Maybe? After all, he was openly being a bigot and demeaning people of the Jewish faith.

But I don't believe that Juan Williams deserved to be terminated by NPR for speaking the truth. We live in a very unsafe world, and Mr. Williams spoke aloud what many of us think. Was he wrong for saying it? In my opinion, no!

And so you know, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin came to his defense. Considering what Juan Williams has said about conservatives and Sarah Palin in the past, they were gracious and defended his right to free speech. Apparently NPR doesn't afford their employees the same right.

So, later Wednesday afternoon, Roger Ailes of Fox News, extended and expanded Juan Williams contract with Fox News. He will be on the air a great deal more, and will be doing a column for the Fox News website. And he'll be making $2 million dollars a year doing so. Much more than he made at NPR.

In closing, I believe that NPR violated Juan Willimas right to free speech and discriminated against him accordingly. NPR should be investigated by Congress, and the FCC as well. They should lose more than listeners because of what they did...They should lose their funding and their broadcast license as well!

But that's just my opinion, I could be right!

One Mans Opinion 10/20/2010
By Dewaine Shoulders

Okay, let me preface this blog. A good friend of mine wrote a blog after he was accused of being an Islamaphobe. The following is his response to that charge. This is perhaps the best researched piece on Radical Islam I have ever seen.
And how Islamaphobia is an incorrect term.

Bryon Jordan wrote this and it is represented here with his permission.
The original article can be seen on his blog
http://ext12.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-i-wrote-this-i-was-called.html

Why I wrote this

I was called an Islamaphobe by a good friend on a social network because I do not buy into the media's portrayal of Muslims. I really have given this a lot of thought.

My background

Firstly, I am against all organized religion. I am a Catholic by birth and have never been to church voluntarily. I believe all religion serves three purposes:

1. To control people. Behave or you will go to Hell! You must give money to the church!

2. To give comfort to people when things cannot be explained, such as when a baby dies. Everyone says, he is in a better place because there has to be a reason for when something this tragic happens.

3. To explain things we cannot explain. When the sun rose in Egypt, they had a sun god responsible for that. When the moon rose, they had a moon god for that. When it rained, guess what, it's another god.

It's not like I am singling them out as a religion because I hold a bias against all religions.

I don't know that I hate them as a group, but I do not support or defend them and their beliefs any more. I did defend them for a while until the final straw of RevolutionMuslim.Com making overt threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker after episodes of South Park that never showed a character of Mohammed, but only insinuated that he was in a bear suit.

On the post was the following quote:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

I can only guess that this example was similar to the warning of a horse's head in the bed in the movie "The Godfather." It was simply a message. What a peaceful message to send.

Hate versus Fear

I am not scared of Islam as phobe might indicate. Phobia is from the Greek and means fear. Liberals like to paint someone like myself as basing my stance against anything I am not open to as fear and ignorance and thus they slap the predicate phobe onto a word and this simply wrong.

Liberals like to equate hate to fear, but this is not necessarily a true statement.

I hate smokers. I hate being around smokers. I hate my clothes stinking from their smoke. Does this make me scared of smoke as a "phobia" would lead me to believe.

"KNOCK-KNOCK"

"Who's there?"

"A smoker."

"AAHHHHHH!!!!!! Run for your life! Oh my God! Oh my God! I am so scared!"

You may think I am being silly, but watch how people react to snakes, spiders, clowns, heights, etc. That's true fear. It's not always rational.

Technically, looking at the definition, today's liberal would say “yes” because someone has changed the definition of phobia to mean a fear or intense hatred.

It's the stupidest bleeping thing I have ever read when I looked up the word capnophobia. The definition is inclusive with "hatred" despite the Greek root only meaning fear. That's what the Greek prefix mis means in a word such as misanthrope.

I am not a capnaphobic, I am a miscapnic.

And unlike someone who has an irrational fear, I can rationalize with valid data why why I consider Islam dangerous.

Islam by the numbers

For my numbers, I do make one basic assumption. Anyone who supports violent Jihad is not a fan of America. If you can prove otherwise, then do so.

I found a website that estimates 1.57 Billion Muslims in the world. It is the second largest religion in the world and growing.

According to a Reuters article in 2006, the population of Indonesia is 220 million people.

85% of the people are Muslim. 10% of the Muslims back violent Jihad. That means in Indonesia alone, 18.7 Million people agree with violent Jihad. (220 Million x 85% x 10%)

Does that number sound like a small, fringe element to you in regular numbers?

This one country has as many Muslims believing in violent jihad as the entire population of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Columbus Ohio. I found the data chart for city populations here.

It would be statistically invalid because of the sampling to use the 10.0% in Indonesia supporting Jihad towards the 1.57 Billion Muslims in the world. It's simply not a valid sample, however, let's look at other regions and see if we can extrapolate some numbers that disprove Indonesia as being an extreme number.

This website estimates the Muslim population across regions.

	Muslim population (Millions)
North America	7.26
South America	2.41
Asia	1100.00
Europe	51.46
Africa	462.00

Europe

The following information was pulled from PewGlobal.org and it is used to calculate the number of Muslims in Europe that support suicide bombings in a Jihad. The sample is asked only of Muslims. The percentage reflects the percentage of Muslims who feel suicide bombings are either often or sometimes justified to defend Islam.

These 4 countries represent over 20% of European Muslims.

	Percentage say often or sometimes is justified	Muslim Population of the country (Millions)	Product of the two columns (Millions)
French Muslims	16.00%	6.12	0.98
Spanish Muslims	16.00%	0.55	0.09
British Muslims	15.00%	1.51	0.23
German Muslims	7.00%	3.05	0.21
	Total	11.23	1.51
Total European Mulim Population		51.46
European Muslim population in these four countries		21.82%

1.51 Million Muslims that support Jihad in these 4 countries.

11.23 Million Muslims in these 4 countries

This equals 13% of Muslims in these 4 countries that represent over 20% of the entire Muslim population in Europe that support suicide bombings. That's a higher percentage than in Indonesia!

For all of Europe I will extrapolate that 13% of European Muslims feel that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified to defend Islam.

51.46 Million Muslims x 13% = 6.69 Million more Muslims that feel it is OK for attacks to occur in defense of Islam.

North America

7% of Muslims in America say violence is sometimes or often justified.

That's 1 out of 14. I don't know if I would consider that a small fringe group supporting bombings. That's 510,000 Muslims in America that feel violence is sometimes or often justified to defend Islam. That more than the entire population of Kansas City, MO, our 35^th most populous city.

I came up with the percentage from the article as follows:

"While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely."

80% + 13% = 93%.

Asia

The following chart was derived from here.

	Percentage say often or sometimes is justified	Muslim Population of the country (Millions)	Product of the two columns (Millions)
Lebanon	34.00%	2.33	0.79
Palestine Terr.	70.00%	3.82	2.67
Malaysia	26.00%	15.40	4.00
Kuwait	21.00%	2.70	0.57
Bangladesh	20.00%	0.55	0.11
Pakistan	9.00%	1.51	0.14
Turkey	16.00%	73.55	11.77
Jordan	23.00%	5.26	1.21
	Total	105.12	21.26

So out of 105 Million Muslims in these Asian countries, 21.26 Million feel suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.

That's a percentage of 20.24%. That seems larger than a fringe element supporting the actions of suicide bombers. Again, it makes the Indonesia percentage seem small.

For the sake of erring on the side of caution, should perhaps I should extrapolate the number of Asian Muslims from all the other countries at 10%?

Is it safe to just use 10% considering the size of Indonesia and the fact it is a very low percentage?

I will go one better and just use the 9 percent representing Pakistan knowing that it is shorting 800,000 known Indonesians that are Muslim and support violence to defend Islam.

Total Asian Muslim Population is 1.1 Billion.

1.1 Billion x 9% = 99 Million Muslims that sometimes or often feel suicide bombing to defend Islam are justified.

Africa

Africa data was pulled from the same source.

	Percentage say often or sometimes is justified	Muslim Population of the country (Millions)	Product of the two columns (Millions)
Ethiopia	18.00%	37.40	6.73
Ghana	30.00%	6.78	2.03
Ivory Coast	30.00%	11.82	3.55
Mali	39.00%	12.51	4.88
Nigeria	34.00%	65.25	22.19
Senegal	18.00%	11.19	2.01
Tanzia	12.00%	18.95	2.27
Uganda	30.00%	4.43	1.33
	Total	168.33	44.99

So 44.99 Million Muslims out of 168.33 Muslims in Africa think bombings are sometimes or often justified to defend Islam.

That is 26.7% for these 8 countries. I thought the 10% in Indonesia was high. Wow.

There are 462 Million Muslims in Africa.

462 Million x 26.7% = 123.35 Million Muslims.

Conclusion

	Muslim population (Millions)	Percentage that support suicide bombings	Total raw number (Millions)
North America	7.26	7.00%	0.51
South America	2.41	Not significant	Not significant
Asia	1100.00	9.00%	99.00
Europe	51.46	13.00%	6.69
Africa	462.00	26.70%	123.35
Totals	1623.13		229.55
Total percentage	14.14%

We have calculated that 14.14% of Muslims in the world feel that bombings are sometimes or often justified in defense of Islam. We are talking over 229 million Muslims across the world that support this method of defense. This is the number of people who support bombings occasionally or often. This is not the number of terrorists in the world. It's akin to the 330 Million Americans that support our troops. We are not all killing for our country, but we are supporting our troops and their mission.

By comparison, the top 50 most populous states in America adds up to only 48.1 Million.

I did not collect data on South America. we were talking on 2.1 Million Muslims there and something tells me that small of a group out of 1.57 Billion would not significantly change any conclusions that can be made from the data.

My conclusion

Is 14.14% a "fringe element?" That's 1 in 7 Muslims that support these bombings across the world either occasionally or often. And it doesn't even include the Muslims who feel that violence is justified only on rare occasions.

I personally consider something much less than 1% a fringe element. I think the number contradicts that it's only a fringe element supporting the bombings. I think anyone who says Muslims are really peaceful and that only a fringe element is supporting terrorism has his/her head in the sand. The data does not support that position.

Does my distrust of them as a religion make me an Islamophobe? No. I distrust all religions, but I do not single out Islam and shudder in fear.

Is Islam a religion of peace? Not in my opinion. While that the data does show a majority of them are peaceful, it is most definitely not just a fringe element supporting the terrorists. My definition of fringe element is much smaller than 1 in 7.

One Mans Opinion:

Americans need to understand that the so-called fringe elements that the media keep going on about in Islam (the Radical Islamic Extremists) are more than simply a few whackos out there trying to blow things up. They are everywhere, and in far greater numbers than our government will confess to. They are out to change the world into an Islamic world, and to have you either bowing down to Mecca or losing your life.

If this was helpful in any way to you, or you know someone that needs to see this, then pass it on.

Okay, let me preface this blog. A good friend of mine wrote a blog after he was accused of being an Islamaphobe. The following is his response to that charge. This is perhaps the best researched piece on Radical Islam I have ever seen.
And how Islamaphobia is an incorrect term.

Bryon Jordan wrote this and it is represented here with his permission.
The original article can be seen on his blog
http://ext12.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-i-wrote-this-i-was-called.html

Why I wrote this

I was called an Islamaphobe by a good friend on a social network because I do not buy into the media's portrayal of Muslims. I really have given this a lot of thought.

My background

Firstly, I am against all organized religion. I am a Catholic by birth and have never been to church voluntarily. I believe all religion serves three purposes:

1. To control people. Behave or you will go to Hell! You must give money to the church!

2. To give comfort to people when things cannot be explained, such as when a baby dies. Everyone says, he is in a better place because there has to be a reason for when something this tragic happens.

3. To explain things we cannot explain. When the sun rose in Egypt, they had a sun god responsible for that. When the moon rose, they had a moon god for that. When it rained, guess what, it's another god.

It's not like I am singling them out as a religion because I hold a bias against all religions.

I don't know that I hate them as a group, but I do not support or defend them and their beliefs any more. I did defend them for a while until the final straw of RevolutionMuslim.Com making overt threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker after episodes of South Park that never showed a character of Mohammed, but only insinuated that he was in a bear suit.

On the post was the following quote:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

I can only guess that this example was similar to the warning of a horse's head in the bed in the movie "The Godfather." It was simply a message. What a peaceful message to send.

Hate versus Fear

I am not scared of Islam as phobe might indicate. Phobia is from the Greek and means fear. Liberals like to paint someone like myself as basing my stance against anything I am not open to as fear and ignorance and thus they slap the predicate phobe onto a word and this simply wrong.

Liberals like to equate hate to fear, but this is not necessarily a true statement.

I hate smokers. I hate being around smokers. I hate my clothes stinking from their smoke. Does this make me scared of smoke as a "phobia" would lead me to believe.

"KNOCK-KNOCK"

"Who's there?"

"A smoker."

"AAHHHHHH!!!!!! Run for your life! Oh my God! Oh my God! I am so scared!"

You may think I am being silly, but watch how people react to snakes, spiders, clowns, heights, etc. That's true fear. It's not always rational.

Technically, looking at the definition, today's liberal would say “yes” because someone has changed the definition of phobia to mean a fear or intense hatred.

It's the stupidest bleeping thing I have ever read when I looked up the word capnophobia. The definition is inclusive with "hatred" despite the Greek root only meaning fear. That's what the Greek prefix mis means in a word such as misanthrope.

I an not a capnaphobic, I am a miscapnic.

And unlike someone who has an irrational fear, I can rationalize with valid data why why I consider Islam dangerous.

Islam by the numbers

For my numbers, I do make one basic assumption. Anyone who supports violent Jihad is not a fan of America. If you can prove otherwise, then do so.

I found a website that estimates 1.57 Billion Muslims in the world. It is the second largest religion in the world and growing.

According to a Reuters article in 2006, the population of Indonesia is 220 million people.

85% of the people are Muslim. 10% of the Muslims back violent Jihad. That means in Indonesia alone, 18.7 Million people agree with violent Jihad. (220 Million x 85% x 10%)

Does that number sound like a small, fringe element to you in regular numbers?

This one country has as many Muslims believing in violent jihad as the entire population of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Columbus Ohio. I found the data chart for city populations here.

It would be statistically invalid because of the sampling to use the 10.0% in Indonesia supporting Jihad towards the 1.57 Billion Muslims in the world. It's simply not a valid sample, however, let's look at other regions and see if we can extrapolate some numbers that disprove Indonesia as being an extreme number.

This website estimates the Muslim population across regions.

	Muslim population (Millions)
North America	7.26
South America	2.41
Asia	1100.00
Europe	51.46
Africa	462.00

Europe

The following information was pulled from PewGlobal.org and it is used to calculate the number of Muslims in Europe that support suicide bombings in a Jihad. The sample is asked only of Muslims. The percentage reflects the percentage of Muslims who feel suicide bombings are either often or sometimes justified to defend Islam.

These 4 countries represent over 20% of European Muslims.

	Percentage say often or sometimes is justified	Muslim Population of the country (Millions)	Product of the two columns (Millions)
French Muslims	16.00%	6.12	0.98
Spanish Muslims	16.00%	0.55	0.09
British Muslims	15.00%	1.51	0.23
German Muslims	7.00%	3.05	0.21
	Total	11.23	1.51
Total European Mulim Population		51.46
European Muslim population in these four countries		21.82%

1.51 Million Muslims that support Jihad in these 4 countries.

11.23 Million Muslims in these 4 countries

This equals 13% of Muslims in these 4 countries that represent over 20% of the entire Muslim population in Europe that support suicide bombings. That's a higher percentage than in Indonesia!

For all of Europe I will extrapolate that 13% of European Muslims feel that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified to defend Islam.

51.46 Million Muslims x 13% = 6.69 Million more Muslims that feel it is OK for attacks to occur in defense of Islam.

North America

7% of Muslims in America say violence is sometimes or often justified.

That's 1 out of 14. I don't know if I would consider that a small fringe group supporting bombings. That's 510,000 Muslims in America that feel violence is sometimes or often justified to defend Islam. That more than the entire population of Kansas City, MO, our 35^th most populous city.

I came up with the percentage from the article as follows:

"While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely."

80% + 13% = 93%.

Asia

The following chart was derived from here.

	Percentage say often or sometimes is justified	Muslim Population of the country (Millions)	Product of the two columns (Millions)
Lebanon	34.00%	2.33	0.79
Palestine Terr.	70.00%	3.82	2.67
Malaysia	26.00%	15.40	4.00
Kuwait	21.00%	2.70	0.57
Bangladesh	20.00%	0.55	0.11
Pakistan	9.00%	1.51	0.14
Turkey	16.00%	73.55	11.77
Jordan	23.00%	5.26	1.21
	Total	105.12	21.26

So out of 105 Million Muslims in these Asian countries, 21.26 Million feel suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.

That's a percentage of 20.24%. That seems larger than a fringe element supporting the actions of suicide bombers. Again, it makes the Indonesia percentage seem small.

For the sake of erring on the side of caution, should perhaps I should extrapolate the number of Asian Muslims from all the other countries at 10%?

Is it safe to just use 10% considering the size of Indonesia and the fact it is a very low percentage?

I will go one better and just use the 9 percent representing Pakistan knowing that it is shorting 800,000 known Indonesians that are Muslim and support violence to defend Islam.

Total Asian Muslim Population is 1.1 Billion.

1.1 Billion x 9% = 99 Million Muslims that sometimes or often feel suicide bombing to defend Islam are justified.

Africa

Africa data was pulled from the same source.

	Percentage say often or sometimes is justified	Muslim Population of the country (Millions)	Product of the two columns (Millions)
Ethiopia	18.00%	37.40	6.73
Ghana	30.00%	6.78	2.03
Ivory Coast	30.00%	11.82	3.55
Mali	39.00%	12.51	4.88
Nigeria	34.00%	65.25	22.19
Senegal	18.00%	11.19	2.01
Tanzia	12.00%	18.95	2.27
Uganda	30.00%	4.43	1.33
	Total	168.33	44.99

So 44.99 Million Muslims out of 168.33 Muslims in Africa think bombings are sometimes or often justified to defend Islam.

That is 26.7% for these 8 countries. I thought the 10% in Indonesia was high. Wow.

There are 462 Million Muslims in Africa.

462 Million x 26.7% = 123.35 Million Muslims.

Conclusion

	Muslim population (Millions)	Percentage that support suicide bombings	Total raw number (Millions)
North America	7.26	7.00%	0.51
South America	2.41	Not significant	Not significant
Asia	1100.00	9.00%	99.00
Europe	51.46	13.00%	6.69
Africa	462.00	26.70%	123.35
Totals	1623.13		229.55
Total percentage	14.14%

We have calculated that 14.14% of Muslims in the world feel that bombings are sometimes or often justified in defense of Islam. We are talking over 229 million Muslims across the world that support this method of defense. This is the number of people who support bombings occasionally or often. This is not the number of terrorists in the world. It's akin to the 330 Million Americans that support ourr troops. We are not all killing for our country, but we are supporting our troops and their mission.

By comparison, the top 50 most populous states in America adds up to only 48.1 Million.

I did not collect data on South America. we were talking on 2.1 Million Muslims there and something tells me that small of a group out of 1.57 Billion would not significantly change any conclusions that can be made from the data.

My conclusion

Is 14.14% a "fringe element?" That's 1 in 7 Muslims that support these bombings across the world either occasionally or often. And it doesn't even include the Muslims who feel that violence is justified only on rare occasions.

I personally consider something much less than 1% fringe. I think number contradicts that it's only a fringe element supporting the bombings. I think anyone who says Muslims are really peaceful and only a fringe element is supporting terrorism has his/her head in the sand. The data does not support that position.

Does my distrust of them as a religion make me an Islamophobe? No. I distrust all religions, but I do not single out Islam and shudder in fear.

Is Islam a religion of peace? Not in my opinion. While that the data does show a majority of them are peaceful, it is most definitely not just a fringe element supporting the terrorists. My definition of fringe element is much smaller than 1 in 7.

One Mans Opinion:

Americans need to understand that the so-called fringe elements that the media keep going on about in Islam (the Radical Islamic Extremists) are more than simply a few whackos out there trying to blow things up. They are everywhere, and in far greater numbers than our government will confess to. They are out to change the world into an Islamic world, and to have you either bowing down to Mecca or losing your life.

If this was helpful in any way to you, or you know someone that needs to see this, then pass it on.