In Chesterfield County, S. Carolina, on Dec. 28, 2024, a man entered a convenience store around 8:45 p.m. and put a gun to the clerk’s head, demanding money. The clerk, however, was also armed and, fearing for his life, managed to draw his own firearm and shoot the assailant multiple times, killing him. Security cameras in the store confirmed his account and no charges are expected against the defender. The Sheriff reminded citizens: “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime.” (Chesterfield County Sheriff’s Office Facebook, Chesterfield County, S.C., 12/30/24)

---

On the morning of Dec. 8, 2024, a man broke into an apartment in West Chester, Ohio, through the balcony door. An armed citizen was home, however, and, after hearing noises, found the intruder and shot him. The suspect was transported to the hospital but died there; the investigation was ongoing. (wcpo.com, Cincinnati, Ohio, 12/8/24)

An armed robber entered a gas station convenience store Dec. 21, 2023, around 1 a.m. in South Bend, Ind., and demanded money from the clerk at gunpoint. When the man then got into an altercation with the clerk, a customer believed the clerk to be in danger of his life, so he drew his firearm and fatally shot the assailant. The would-be robber managed to flee the store but collapsed nearby. The store’s security footage quickly confirmed the armed citizen’s account of events and the prosecutor was able to tell reporters the same day that the shooting was justified in defense of someone’s life and they would not seek to press charges. (wndu.com, South Bend, Ind., 12/21/23)

---

On New Year’s Day, a masked man allegedly entered a Taco Bell in Akron, Ohio, pulled out a gun and fired at an employee behind the counter. Another employee, a 21-year-old man, drew his own gun and fired back at the assailant, striking him in the chest. The would-be robber then fled with some of the money, only to show up at the hospital a short time later. Another man, who drove him to the hospital and who was apparently involved in the incident in some way, was arrested. The wounded suspect was in stable condition and was expected to face charges upon release. The police chief said, “To some degree, [he] could’ve saved or prevented someone from being seriously injured or killed—himself or others.” (news5cleveland.com, Cleveland, Ohio, 1/2/24)

On Jan. 21, a woman in Fruita, Colo., discovered an intruder in her home. To protect the victim, reports don’t provide many details on the incident, but do indicate that the woman was able to defend herself with her firearm, causing the man to flee. Fruita police reminded area residents to always keep their homes and cars locked and to “take all precautions necessary to protect yourself and your property, regardless of how safe you think your neighborhood is.” (kjct8.com, Grand Junction, Colo., 1/22/24)

---

A homeowner in Georgia, Vt., used a muzzleloading rifle to defend himself against several home intruders just before midnight on Jan. 30. The three suspects reportedly were forcing entry through a locked door. The homeowner shot one of the alleged intruders, a 39-year-old man, critically wounding him, then shut the door and called police. The other would-be home invaders fled before police arrived, but officers found the wounded man in a neighbor’s yard and transported him to the hospital. The investigation was still ongoing. (mychamplainvalley.com, Colchester, Vt., 1/31/24)

---

On Feb. 11 in East Greenwich, R.I., a man called police to report that a man wielding a knife had followed him into his garage and demanded his car. The homeowner, however, was an armed citizen, and the suspect ran off after he drew his firearm. He was later found allegedly using a rock to break into a nearby home through the sliding-glass door. Police quickly arrested the 30-year-old suspect, who faces multiple charges. (wmur.com, Manchester, N.H., 2/11/24)

Related Stories

• The Armed Citizen® March 8, 2024
• The Armed Citizen® April 8, 2024
• The Armed Citizen® May 3, 2024
• The Armed Citizen® October 12, 2024
• The Armed Citizen® September 13, 2024

PUBLISHED HERE WITH PERMISSION OF THE NRA

By Sally C. Pipes

In its final days in office, the Biden administration finalized a rule to eliminate nearly $50 billion in medical debt from 15 million Americans’ credit reports.  But the rule betrays a complete misunderstanding of health economics — and like former President Biden’s other market interventions, it may only serve to make Americans worse off.

Medical debt simply isn’t the crisis many have made it out to be. A recent analysis from the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker found that just 8% of American adults hold medical debt. Among those with outstanding healthcare bills, roughly half owe less than $2,000. Just over one in seven of those with debt — roughly 1% of American adults — owe more than $10,000.

Many debtors have solid plans to pay unexpected medical bills, according to KFF polling. More than one-third of respondents with current healthcare debt said they’d put a $500 medical bill on a credit card and pay it off over time or in full at the next statement. Another 15% said they’d pay the bill immediately using cash, check, debit card, or a Health or Flexible Savings Account. Around 7% said they’d make a payment plan with their provider.

So it seems that medical debt is at least manageable for most of those who hold it. And considering the average American holds more than $90,000 in total debt, medical debt is far from the largest source of financial strain.

That explains why past actions to forgive medical debt haven’t resulted in meaningful improvements to Americans’ lives. Indeed, a recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that large-scale healthcare debt relief had no effect on patients’ mental health, physical health, or financial wellness.

There’s a strong chance that the Biden administration’s last-minute move to minimize medical debt will have a negative impact on those who have it. Without an accurate picture of the debts people owe or have paid, lenders may become more cautious about offering money to borrow in the first place.

The result would be less available credit for many Americans — not more.

Obscuring medical debt could lead some lenders to approve loans for people whose credit scores wouldn’t have been high enough to qualify otherwise. But if those borrowers aren’t prepared to repay the loans, they could end up defaulting and face even more financial hardship.

Either scenario will increase uncertainty around loan repayment — and thereby incentivize lenders to raise interest rates. That will disproportionately harm low- and middle-income Americans, who already face a tougher time getting approved for loans and consistently making payments.  

Some may even need to turn to alternative sources of funding, such as high-interest payday loans.

Then there’s the possibility that the rule could compel providers to ask for payment up front. If that happens, some patients could find it harder to access care.

The NBER paper found that policies related to medical debt forgiveness led to reductions in payments of existing healthcare bills. That makes sense. If patients know their medical debt might be forgiven — or, at the very least, won’t appear on their credit report — they’ll prioritize paying their other debts first.

The Biden administration claimed its medical debt rule would offer financial relief to millions of Americans. It may have just the opposite effect — and make it harder for people to access care to boot.

Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The World’s Medicine Chest: How America Achieved Pharmaceutical Supremacy — and How to Keep It (Encounter 2025). Follow her on X @sallypipes.

By Dr. Kenneth E. Thorpe

Just before the inauguration, the outgoing Biden administration announced 15 new medications that’ll be subject to government price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act. The new prices, which only apply to Medicare, will officially take effect in 2027.

Many will celebrate this government pricing as a win for affordable healthcare, but the reality is far more complex. In fact, for the tens of millions of Americans managing chronic conditions, government price-setting could end up making it harder to access life-saving treatments.

The fundamental driver of America’s healthcare affordability crisis isn’t drug prices themselves — it’s the complex system of rebates, discounts, and market distortions created by insurance companies and middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers. These entities act as gatekeepers between drug manufacturers and patients. Insurers and PBMs negotiate steep discounts for themselves while saddling everyday people with exorbitant out-of-pocket costs.

Just last month, the Federal Trade Commission revealed that three major PBMs marked up drug prices by hundreds or thousands of percent at their affiliated pharmacies, generating $7.3 billion in revenue above the drugs’ acquisition costs.

Government pricing will further encourage insurance companies to push patients toward the cheapest medicines, regardless of what their doctor might have prescribed. When Medicare artificially lowers the price for one drug — say, a breast cancer treatment — it creates a ripple effect across the market for all similar medicines. While insurers must cover the negotiated drug, they can use bureaucratic rules to push patients toward whichever option brings them the highest profits, whether that’s the negotiated drug or alternatives with bigger rebates.

These aren’t just hypothetical concerns. Medicare itself has acknowledged that insurers will likely respond to these prices by requiring more paperwork before covering some medications, forcing patients to try cheaper options first, or imposing strict quantity limits. Put simply: Medicare drug price negotiations could lead to more red tape between patients and the treatments they need.

The IRA compounds these challenges with a puzzling double standard: “Small molecules” that typically come in the form of pills or tablets face price-setting after they’ve been on the market for nine years, while injectable medicines called “biologics” get 13 years of exemption. This arbitrary “pill penalty” threatens to upend pharmaceutical innovation in ways that particularly harm chronic disease patients.

Here’s why: Some novel drugs can earn as much as half of their revenue in the final years before their patent protections expire, typically around 13 years after they reach the market. By shortchanging pills by four years, the IRA creates a powerful incentive for companies to prioritize investments in biologics.

Fortunately, there’s growing bipartisan recognition of this oversight in the IRA. The Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act would eliminate the pill penalty by giving all drugs the same 13-year reprieve from Medicare pricing. This wouldn’t solve everything, but it would remove an artificial barrier to developing the kinds of treatments many chronic disease patients prefer.

By fixing these shortcomings, policymakers can ensure the IRA fully delivers on its promise of affordable, accessible care.

Kenneth E. Thorpe, PhD is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Health Policy at Emory University and Chair of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD). This piece originally ran in RealClearHealth.

By Kevin B. Kimble

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump declared that America needs a health system that will “take care of everybody,” not just those who can “pay for it.”

It’s easy to understand why tens of millions of Americans — of both parties — agree with this basic moral sentiment. Every major faith tradition teaches that we should help “the least of these.”

Turning that promise into reality is easier said than done, of course. But it can be done — and both parties actually agree on one of the best places to start: reining in the power of the pharmacy benefit managers.

PBMs are middlemen in the drug supply chain. In theory, they help insurance companies negotiate bulk discounts and rebates on medicines. But in practice, PBMs have distorted the system to enrich themselves, jacking up drug prices while delivering few tangible benefits to patients.

The Federal Trade Commission recently took notice of the problem. Its recent lawsuit against three PBMs for inflating insulin prices reveals the human cost of this broken system. And it’s not hitting all Americans equally. The same communities that have historically faced barriers to health care access — Black, Hispanic and Native Americans — are bearing the brunt of these inflated prices.

This is how systemic inequities compound. A broken market mechanism leads to inflated prices, which disproportionately impact communities of color, which leads to worse health outcomes, which creates economic instability through medical debt and lost work days, which makes it even harder to afford medication. The cycle continues, transforming a market failure into a driver of racial health disparities.

But change is within reach. Congress is poised to act, with two critical bills on the table that would rein in PBM practices and lower drug costs for Medicare patients.

These proposed reforms target the core issues driving up drug prices. One bill aims to restructure how PBMs make money, removing their incentive to steer patients toward more expensive medications. This would force PBMs to compete based on the value they provide to patients and the health care system, not on how much they can inflate prices.

Another crucial element of these reforms would ensure that the discounts PBMs negotiate actually reach patients. By requiring PBMs to pass along a significant portion of these savings at the pharmacy counter, we can directly reduce out-of-pocket costs for those struggling to afford their medications.

The lame-duck session of Congress is our moment. Now that the divisive election is over, PBM reform stands out as a rare bipartisan area of agreement. Both parties recognize the need to lower drug costs. By acting this year, Congress can prove our political system can still deliver for the people.

Kevin B. Kimble is the founder and executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Global Policy Initiative. This piece first appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

BY BRAD HADFIELDJoe Shoen, CEO of U-Haul, has had enough.As MSM reported on November 21st, U-Haul filed a complaint in the US District Court of Arizona against Public Storage. The action is designed to protect U-Haul’s right to continue its use of the color orange and the word ‘orange’ when promoting and marketing its storage business. This comes after Public Storage demanded U-Haul discontinue use of the color, whether on doors, signage or in marketing and promotional materials, despite the fact that it has been using it since 1945.Shoen sat down with MSM to discuss the complaint and what it could mean not just for U-Haul, but every owner and operator in the self-storage industry.“[Public Storage] started this about four years ago,” says Shoen. “We tried to talk with them numerous times, but effectively got the brush off. It got to the point where we had no choice but to file a complaint and hope a federal district judge will make a common sense decision.”The complaint states that U-Haul believes Public Storage has “engaged in a multi-faceted and corrupt campaign to wrongfully appropriate rights in the use of the color and word ‘orange’ in connection with self-storage services and to assert such rights against U-Haul, its sister companies, its dealers, and licensees.”“Orange is a standard color in self-storage,” explains Shoen. “Claiming exclusive rights to the color, whether on doors, buildings, or marketing materials is egregious, and if they can get a registration they’ll enforce it and everyone, not just U-Haul, is going to have to change. A small operator with 500 unit doors? You’re going to have to pay to replace or repaint them. That is going to be an expensive undertaking.”To support the notion that orange is a general self-storage color, and not a color only associated with Public Storage, Shoen says the company has turned over to the court evidence of at least 800 self-storage operators that use the color orange on their doors. “That’s just what we’ve gathered in a few weeks,” he adds. “I believe there are many, many more.” A quick search of stock photography also confirms the prevalence of the color orange within the industry; there are hundreds of stock photos showing orange doors and buildings – none of which are specific to Public Storage.

---

“U-Haul alone has 5,000 independent dealers who are also self-storage operators. These aren’t big operations; maybe one to three facilities. They aren’t in a position to fight this, so we have to settle this matter once and for all and get a judge to say, ‘Stop this, this color can be used by any self-storage facility across the board.’”

U-Haul’s complaint further states that Public Storage is so determined to monopolize the color and/or the term ‘orange’ that it has fabricated use of trademarks containing the word and knowingly filed fraudulent evidence of trademark use with the USPTO. As evidence, U-Haul has turned over examples of website pages in which Public Storage retroactively added slogans and marks centered around the word and color orange to existing pages, captured images of it, and then removed them. “It was only done to tell the judge they’d used it, but it was there for maybe four weeks,” states Shoen. “They’ve also clearly been manipulating Wikipedia and AI so that orange appears to be attributed only to public storage. It’s all so dishonest, and I don’t think it’s wise to fib to the judge.”

As a family company – Shoen’s children Stuart, Sam, and Royal all work for U-Haul – Shoen feels they have more in common with smaller operators than one might think, which is another reason he’s standing up to Public Storage. “If they get what they want and take control of this color, this will affect everyone in the industry and they’ll begin to fall like dominoes. It’ll cause a serious disruption, and we can’t allow it to happen. So we’re fighting for the little guys too, because they can’t push back against this like we can.”

That said, Shoen says he’d still love to hear from them, and he addresses them directly: “Listen, we’re not asking for anything, and we’re certainly not going to ask for help with attorney’s fees; we’ve got that covered! We just think all of us should stick together as a group and say, ‘We all have a right to this color.’ This will show the court that we’re in this together, and that this has far-reaching effects outside of just U-Haul.”

Shoen encourages anyone concerned about the case, and their own use of the color orange, to reach out to him directly and has provided his email address and cell phone number. joe@uhaul.com

602-390-6525

–

MSM previously reached out to Public Storage for comment but did not receive a response.

View our original story on this complaint:

U-Haul Files Complaint Against Public Storage Over Orange Branding

By Salvatore J. Giorgianni

Concerns about high drug prices can take a significant toll on Americans every day. A new West Health-Gallup study recently found that a mere 55% of Americans believe they can afford their healthcare and prescription drugs, down six points in just one year. Thankfully, Congress has a rare bi-partisan opportunity in this upcoming lame duck session to address one of the primary drivers of this crisis: pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs.

These powerful middlemen control prescription drug access for millions of Americans, and their business model is nefarious — but currently legal. PBMs, which represent for-profit insurance companies, extract (or dictate) substantial rebates and discounts off the nominal “list” price of medicines and also decide which medicines should be covered on different insurance plans.
These for-profit PBMs pocket the lion’s share of these discounts for themselves and send the rest to insurers — while patients are stuck paying copays and coinsurance based on the much higher list prices.

The consequences are heartbreaking. The West Health-Gallup study reports that “72.2 million Americans avoided necessary medical care in the past three months due to cost.” This only exacerbates other barriers to care for vulnerable populations. Many patients who have walked away from the pharmacy counter empty-handed did so because of unaffordable copay or coinsurance payments.

One of the most important remedies to this dangerous situation is to reform how PBMs work and require them to be accountable and to return discounts and rebate savings to patients. Two bipartisan bills currently before Congress offer real solutions. The first, the Modernizing and Ensuring PBM Accountability Act, would “delink” PBM compensation from drug prices. Currently, PBMs earn fees calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price. PBMs would have to charge flat fees based on actual services provided, eliminating their incentive to favor higher-priced medications.

The second bill would require patient cost-sharing to be based on a drug’s actual net price — what insurers pay after rebates and discounts — rather than its list price. This seemingly simple change could dramatically reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients with conditions like asthma, heart disease, and those requiring blood thinners.

These PBM practices also have an impact on overall health and wellness. When patients can’t afford medications, manageable chronic conditions can escalate into medical emergencies. This creates a cascade of costly hospitalizations and complications that strain our entire healthcare system. They also adversely impact access to care.  Pharmacies, particularly independent community pharmacies that proudly serve vulnerable populations are being squeezed to the breaking point by PBM practices.  This is particularly appalling when you consider that one of the largest chain pharmacy corporations also owns one of the largest PBM operations.

Congress needs to seize the moment and act now to address PBM overreach and abuses. Strong majorities across party lines are demanding change. These reforms wouldn’t solve every problem, but they would represent a significant step toward a more transparent, patient-centered system.

Salvatore J. Giorgianni, PharmD, CMHE is the Vice-President and Cofounder of Healthy Men Inc. and Chair-Emeritus and Cofounder of the American Public Health Association Men’s Health Caucus. This piece originally ran in Medical Economics.

By Andrei Iancu

America’s first patent statutes date to the 18th century, when steam engines and cotton gins were cutting-edge. The law that defines what inventions are patentable was written in 1793, and its operative language has not been substantively revised since. It’s little wonder, then, that in recent years, confusion has reigned over what can and cannot be patented.   

The Supreme Court has stepped in to try and craft workable rules, but has only confused matters further. Only Congress can adequately clarify our patent laws, and the time to do so is now — before we lose any more of our global competitive edge.

In the first of four key cases, 2010’s Bilski v. Kappos, the court held that a finance firm’s method for reducing risk in commodities trading was ineligible for a patent. But the court didn’t clarify which, if any, new business processes are eligible. 

Next, in Mayo v. Prometheus, SCOTUS determined that medical diagnostic tests aren’t eligible for patents on the supposed grounds that mere measurement and observation of physical qualities isn’t enough. The decision gutted investment in testing research, ceding ground to inventors and developers in countries like China and South Korea, where such patent protections apply to medical devices created for the purpose of diagnosis. 

Then came Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which ruled ineligible for patents all human genetic sequences that occur naturally — including those isolated outside the body in order to develop new genetic therapies. 

Finally, in 2014, the court ruled in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International that novel banking methods, because they are “abstract ideas,” were ineligible for patents. The case, alongside Bilski, was widely interpreted to restrict patent eligibility for software applications. 

In all these cases, the Supreme Court muddied the waters by introducing elements of the U.S. Code governing the tests for whether an invention deserves a patent — including questions of novelty, obviousness and specificity — into the more basic question spelled out in Section 101 of the code about inventions eligible for patent consideration at all.   

For example, the court has held that, because anyone can make an observation, inventions based on observations aren’t patentable. Yet invention is always about making observations.

It will take a change in the law to set matters right. That’s the gap the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) fills. 

PERA removes ambiguity and uncertainty by stating that an invention is eligible for patent consideration unless it falls into certain specifically restricted categories.

PERA rules out patents on genes, but it doesn’t rule out patent eligibility for innovative systems to isolate and purify them outside the body, which are essential to developing genetic therapies. Likewise, PERA specifies that biomarkers — knowledge that certain genetic sequences indicate risk of disease — are ineligible for patents. But the specific use of innovative biomarkers in tests is eligible.

Note that eligibility is just the threshold. To earn patent protection, an invention must meet additional, well-established criteria of novelty, non-obviousness and complete description. But whole categories of inventions will no longer be deemed ineligible based on standards developed for the additional tests.

By reasserting congressional authority over patent eligibility rules, PERA would provide the certainty needed to restart investment and restore U.S. leadership across multiple spheres, from biomedicine to computer science.

Andrei Iancu served as the undersecretary of Commerce for intellectual property and director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from 2018 to 2021. He is co-founder and co-chairman of the Council for Innovation Promotion. This piece originally ran in The Hill.

By Dr. Brian Hainline

Everyone knows that exercise is healthy, and that playing sports is one of the best — and most enjoyable — ways to maintain optimal weight, boost mental wellbeing, and improve strength, balance, and flexibility.

But what is the “healthiest” sport? Does it really matter which activity folks pick, so long as they’re exercising?

Contrary to conventional wisdom, it does matter. A recent study tracked more than 8,000 people over a quarter century to determine which activities offered the greatest health benefits. And there was a clear standout: tennis.

Tennis added 9.7 years to a typical player’s life, compared to that of a sedentary person. The only sport that came close to this was badminton, which added 6.2 years of life.

As a physician who previously served as the chief medical officer of the NCAA, US Open, and chaired two high-level forums for the International Olympic Committee, I’ve noticed for decades that tennis offers people who want to get and stay healthy the most “bang-for-their-buck” when it comes to time, effort, and actual bucks.

Tennis is ideally orchestrated to keep your heart healthy. The high-intensity intervals of activity elevate your heart rate, enhance blood flow, and strengthen cardiovascular health. Just three hours on the court each week could reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 56%, and the risk of death from all causes by 47%. 

Aerobic exercise, by comparison, reduced all-cause mortality by just 27%. Remarkably, running and soccer had no effect on people’s risk of death.

Playing tennis is associated with greater bone mineral density in the femurs, hips, and spine. Tennis players have “significantly greater” upper body musculoskeletal function than their inactive counterparts.

Even those new to the sport could reap its benefits. As one review notes, “numerous studies have identified better bone health not only in tennis players with lifelong tennis participation histories, but also in those who take on the sport in mid-adulthood.”

Tennis also improves mobility, flexibility, and balance. Returning a serve, or positioning yourself for a precision volley, engages the whole body. Each burst of movement — stretching, accelerating, or pivoting — leads to improved coordination.

The confidence that comes from engaging skillfully with a physical task — sometimes referred to as physical literacy — is another reason to take up the game. 80% of players reported improvements in self-esteem after regular trips to the court.

Tennis is also one of the few lifelong sports that can be played cheaply and conveniently. Visit any tennis court — there are roughly 250,000 of them nationwide — and it’s common to see folks playing into their 70s and 80s.

Any exercise is better than no exercise. But if folks are looking to maximize their health gains, now and for decades to come, I always tell them to go pick up a racquet and head to their local tennis court.

Brian Hainline, MD is Chair of the Board and President of the United States Tennis Association and recently transitioned from the NCAA as their Chief Medical Officer. He co-chaired the International Olympic Committee Consensus Meetings on both Pain Management in Elite Athletes and Mental Health in Elite Athletes. Brian is a Clinical Professor of Neurology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. This piece originally ran in the Duluth News Tribune.

The Muslim religion is the fastest-growing religion per capita in the United States, especially in the minority races. Last month I attended the training. During the training session, there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim faiths, who each explained their beliefs. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Muslim gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Muslim and asked: ‘Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that’s the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?’ There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, ” Nonbelievers” I responded, ‘So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. Is that correct?’ The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.’ He sheepishly replied, ‘Yes.’ I then stated, ‘Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine The Pope commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!’ The Muslim was speechless. I continued, ‘I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me! Let me ask you a question: Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?’ You could have heard a pin drop. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the ‘Diversification’ training seminar were not happy with my way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslims’ beliefs. In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the US. to elect the President. I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference.” Brian Canfield, Author Copied & pasted