Charlie's Last Stand: Terri Schiavo's Brother Calls From London With an Update on Charlie Gard

Should the government be able to choose when a child dies? The parents of Charlie Gard are fighting tooth and nail for their parental in Britain’s High Court to determine just that.

Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo and founder of, joined Glenn on radio Thursday to talk about the tragic Charlie Gard story.

Charlie is an 11-month-old baby in London with a rare genetic condition that doctors say is terminal. His parents want to take him to the U.S. for experimental medical care and have raised the money to do it, but the European Court of Human Rights has ordered the hospital to remove his life support so he can die “with dignity.”

Schindler understands all too well a court ordering your loved one to death. Terri Schiavo went into a coma in 1990, living in a mostly unresponsive state for 15 years. When her family fought to keep her alive, her case became a flashpoint for the “right to die” debate concerning patients on life support. Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, won the case and had her feeding tube removed in March 2005. She died 13 days later.

Visiting Charlie’s parents in London, Schindler noticed the toll the ordeal had taken on the couple.

“This is just day-to-day torture for them, not knowing,” Schindler said.

Schindler theorized that the U.K. hospital can’t take the risk of releasing the child to the U.S. for experimental treatment and their diagnosis being proven wrong. Charlie’s parents raised more than $1 million to take him to the U.S. for treatment, and President Donald Trump has offered U.S. assistance. The Vatican children’s hospital in Rome has also offered to provide care.

During today's court hearing, Charlie's parents stormed out of court after reacting to comments made by the judge. They returned about an hour later.

GLENN: The parents of a baby that has been born with a rare disease returned to court today in London, hoping for a fresh analysis of their wish to take their critically ill child to the United States for treatment. The United States has doctors that will treat. They have money to treat. The Vatican and the pope have said, "We'll give the parents and the baby a passport for the Vatican so we can take the child out and transfer him even to the -- the Vatican hospital in Rome." For some reason, the government health care system -- and I hate to break it to you, but this is what we spoke of when we talked about death panels. The court system, along with the doctors, have decided there's no chance for this baby to live. And even if they have the money, they are not allowed to take the child out of the hospital and get any treatment anyplace else. I have to tell you, if that were my child -- I said yesterday that I would relinquish my citizenship in that country, and I would never return home again.

I said that to Jason, a friend of ours, yesterday. He said, "Are you kidding me? I'm sorry. But I would grab a gun, and I would free my child from the hospital." You wouldn't get away with that, and that would be a very bad idea. But wouldn't you feel that way?

We have Bobby Schindler on. He is Terri Schiavo's brother. He founded the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network. If you believe in life and you know what's going on, you're paying attention at all, get involved at

Bobby, welcome to the program.

BOBBY: Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me. It's good to talk to you.

GLENN: You are in London right now?

BOBBY: Actually, I was over there for four days. I had to get back -- I got back on Tuesday. Back in the states. But I was over there, and I visited with the parents for a few days. And I also had the opportunity to visit with that Charlie.

GLENN: So, Bobby, what is happening with Charlie? How are the parents, first of all?

BOBBY: Well, as you can imagine, Glenn, this is just day-to-day torture for them, not knowing if today or tomorrow is going to be the day where the hospital removes his ventilator. So you can tell it's taking its toll. But they're a strong -- they're a strong couple. They're very humble. They're fighting for the life of their child. And I think why they're getting so much support is because parents can relate to what they're going through, as you just alluded to when you were talking about the case.

GLENN: Bobby, what do they do for a living? What kind of people are there? Are they upper class, middle class, lower class? Who are they?

BOBBY: Yeah, I'm not sure. Just blue-collar. I think Connie was just a stay-at-home mom. I'm not exactly sure what the father was doing. But he hasn't worked in several weeks now, just really being attentive to the struggle that they're going through. And I certainly could sympathize and empathize, just this turmoil and just as I said, this torture they're experiencing right now.

GLENN: Bobby, I remember when we were in Tampa together. And at first, I was on the other side of your sister's argument. And then I actually did my homework and woke up and met you guys. And I'll never forget the look on -- in your mother's eyes and your father's eyes. And even you, for a long time even after, you just -- you look tired. Your whole family. Your sister, everybody, just tired.

And I remember in Tampa how the sides had been drawn. And the people who were chanting for your sister to die was -- it was surreal. It was -- it was almost, quite honestly, like what's happening now between, you know, political rivals, where just -- the hatred on one side was so strong. Is that happening with his parents?

How are the people in London and England responding to this?

BOBBY: Well, first, I got to say, Glenn, that this type of thing that Charlie's parents are going through is happening here in the states. We've been doing this for 12 years after Terry died. And we're seeing this, this erosion of our medical rights, parental rights. It's taking place more and more across countless health care facilities in our country.

But what I -- there's a disconnect, Glenn. I was in a hearing on Monday, and I was watching these attorneys for the hospital argue their case. And --

GLENN: What is their case?

BOBBY: Completely unsympathetic, Glenn. It was just coldheartedness. And it was the same type of position that I saw taken with the people that were representing Michael, trying to end my sister's life. They're just -- I don't know how to explain it, other than there's a disconnect I think to really the value of life or the dignity of life or the preciousness of this little child and the treatment that's available for him.

GLENN: Okay. So here -- in your sister's case -- and I don't mean to be callous, but we've had these kinds of conversations before. And you've heard them a million times.

In your sister's case, people could see themselves as your sister and say, "I wouldn't want to live that way." And that's -- that was the thing that motivated so many people, is I wouldn't want to live that way.

And even though the family -- your family offered to take her into the home to care for her, to cover all the costs. You wanted nothing, but your sister to have a chance to have therapy and to live.

People picked sides because they were afraid of -- of having to linger themselves, I really believe.

Here, the family has great doctors overseas. They have the money. They have everything.

What is the -- and usually, people don't say -- look at a child and say, oh, we got to kill him.

What is the -- what's the emotional attachment that the hospital is using to sell this killing?

BOBBY: Well, perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, Glenn. And this is just my opinion. But if you look at -- they diagnosed this boy in the beginning as having no chance, and no treatment was going to help him. Now doctors come along. And I think there's more than one doctor that's come along and said, there is treatment available that will help him. That will help this little boy.

Now, that put the hospital in a terrible and a very dangerous situation. Because if they release him and they allow this treatment to -- they provide or allow the parents to provide this treatment and Charlie improves, well, now they have to sit back and defend themselves why they made this poor diagnosis in the first place. So I think they're scared to death of him possibly getting help or improving from treatment that's available after they basically said this poor boy is suffering. Nothing is ever going to help him.

GLENN: That's a pretty -- I mean, Mike (sic), let me just play devil's advocate. Talking to Bobby Schindler, Terry Schiavo's bother, who is the founder of and deals with these issues.

That's a pretty horrible way to look at doctors. I mean, are doctors really at that place with children?

BOBBY: Well, that's my interpretation. But it makes sense to me. And also, think about it this way, Glenn. If they are wrong and Charlie does improve from treatment out there, think about all the other families now that are being cared for in that hospital. They're going to start questioning. Perhaps they don't agree with the diagnosis that they're getting for their child because it is a children's hospital. So they now might have to face more and more parents questioning diagnoses that are coming from the doctor to the hospital. So I think there's a lot at stake here. And I think it's in the hospital's best interest, not to see Charlie get better. And that's the only way I can explain why they're fighting so hard to kill this kid, when there's treatment -- Glenn, when I was fighting for my sister and we were on the media, I got to tell you, most of the media was taking Michael's side and asking those questions you were just raising. When I was doing media interviews over in London this week -- and I did quite a few of them -- I was -- they were on our side. I mean, not my side. They were on the parents' side and Charlie's side. Nobody could understand why the hospital -- well, they were all defending Charlie. So the interviews were pretty easy because the media wasn't asking me any of the tough questions, like they were for my sister. And they were in agreement for wanting to get Charlie the help that's out for them.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

Bobby, you said a minute ago that this is happening in the United States. Can you -- how often? Why aren't we hearing about it?

Can you give us some examples of this happening?

BOBBY: Well, it's obvious, Glenn. You could probably guess why we're seeing this happen. Hospitals now -- and, again, I'm oversimplifying it. And I'm not trying to paint a broad brush. But I think hospitals now are acting in their best interests, rather than patients. And I think we're seeing values imposed by ethics committees and hospitals. And I think it's -- look, it's a lot cheaper, Glenn, to end -- if they look at somebody that comes in with a significant brain injury, for example, and they look at this person and they say to themselves, "Boy, he's going to need months of care. And it's going to be expensive. And we don't even know if he's going to improve or how much he's going to improve, at least from the onset." And if they're in a position where they can stop treatment, which they are today -- I mean, if you're looking at it from a purely financial point of view, the hospital's best interest is to say, "Okay. Listen, this person's life is going to cost a lot of money. He's not going to get much better anyway." So then they go in and tell the parents. They give them this poor diagnosis. And they say, "Look, you don't want to end up like a Terry Schiavo, so to speak. You know, why don't you do what's best for this person. Put him out of his suffering and end his life." And they have the legal means now to do this. And I could go into the reasons.

GLENN: Have you run into people who have had your sister used by doctors like that?

BOBBY: Yes. There was an article actually.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

BOBBY: And people tell me this all the time. I shouldn't say all the time. But I do hear it occasionally.

GLENN: Yeah.

BOBBY: Where they do bring up my sister. And there was actually an article -- I read it one time -- where the family said that the doctors told them that your son or your daughter, whoever it was at the time, is going to end up like a Terri Schiavo. And it's in your best interest to end or terminate that person's life. It's terrible. Terrible.

GLENN: How does that make you and your sister feel?

BOBBY: Well, I just think it shows you just the biases and the way we've been desensitized to just the value of human life. When we look at someone with a brain injury, and we want to just decide to end their life instead of care for them. It's just systemic to the problem we have in our culture today.

GLENN: Is this a cultural thing or is this a socialized medicine thing?

BOBBY: Well, I think it's a combination, Glenn. I think there's a lot of dynamics occurring today.

And, again, you know, you look at the food and water issue and how it's been reclassified, where food and water now is medical treatment rather than basic care.

GLENN: Right.

BOBBY: And all these changes that have been made in our health care system today that put more and more people at risk. And we're not even aware. I mean, people walk into a hospital situation, and they don't even understand that hospitals now and physicians make treatment -- you know, treatment decisions, rather than families. And depending on the situation. And I don't know if you saw recently what they tried to pass in Oregon, where they tried to pass -- and this was just the past couple of months, where they tried to make spoon feeding for those that weren't able to feed themselves with a spoon, as a form of medical treatment. And, therefore --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

BOBBY: Yeah. I mean, this is where we're heading. This constant push to impose values, you know, on people rather than family members, on what's their best treatment options? And make it easier and easier to end people's lives because of cost. And it was the lobby -- lobby industry that was pushing this in Oregon to try and get this legislation passed.

GLENN: Bobby -- you go to

What can people do to help? What are you doing, and how can people get involved?

BOBBY: Yeah, I think the way people need to help themselves is become patient advocates. Understand your rights. If you are -- and appoint someone who is a strong -- we need heroic advocates, Glenn, that are going to stand in and defend you if you're in a situation where you need certain treatment and the hospital is pushing back. You need to know your rights and how to defend loved ones if something like this happens to you. Because I'm telling you -- and, again, there's some -- please don't get me wrong on this. There's some wonderful facilities out there, and we deal with great doctors all the time, and nurses. But there is this shift where we are now making quality-of-life judgments. Or, I should say the health care system is making quality-of-life judgments whether someone should live or die, based on their quality of life. And we need to understand that this is happening. And we need to know how to defend ourselves if it does.

GLENN: If you would like to get involved in Stand for Life because it may be you that can't lift the spoon and they deem that as medical treatment. Go to That's Bobby, best of luck. It's always good to talk to you. Thank you so much. God bless.

BOBBY: Thanks, Glenn. God bless you.

GLENN: You bet. This guy is one of the most remarkable people I've met. Really, truly. And I just don't know how to help because so many people just don't want to hear about this stuff. And he is on the front lines every day. And he has not stopped. His life changed --

JEFFY: It has been now forever.

GLENN: It's been forever. His whole life now has been dedicated because his sister was under attack. And this whole family has just -- what they have endured and what they have done because of it is remarkable. You want to stand with some really good people who are fighting, go to


Glenn reads leftists’ CLUELESS reactions to SCOTUS decision

The far-left proved once again it’s members care very little about ‘peace.’ In fact, some reactions from leftist, blue checkmarks on Twitter show just how ANGRY they can be…especially when it comes to the Supreme Court preserving the Constitution and returning rights to the STATES. Glenn reads several of their reactions to SCOTUS' recent decision that further protects the Second Amendment...


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Boy, I just wanted to go through some of the blue checkmark responses from yesterday. Because, gee. I just -- I just don't -- I just don't know what else to say. They were so right on target. Now, that's -- that's a joke. I didn't mean it. I didn't mean it actually target. You know, like Sarah Palin actually meant it. Alicia Sultan. Or Ashia, or whatever her name is. She says, God forbid. Listen, you're listening right now to a guy who is in the Radio Hall of Fame. I am so good at what I do. I don't even need to know how to pronounce names. I don't have to. They were like, this guy is like a radio god.

Yeah, but have you heard him?
Yeah, put him in the Hall of Fame.
Anyway, she said, God forbid, someone you love gets killed by gun violence. I second that. Second Amendment fetishizing will never bring that back, or a make that loss easier to bear. Yeah. I agree with that. I mean, hang on. Let me just take the ball out of my mouth here. I have this fetish thing with the Second Amendment. It is hot. Too many people believe that unfettered access to guns will never hurt someone they love, until it happens. Okay. I don't know what your point is really here. Marion Williams says. People will die because of this. And to be very clear, now, listen to this argument.
To be very clear. They're not doing this to protect the Second Amendment. They're doing it to protect the primacy of property rights.
Well, gosh, that's a good reason to do it too, I guess. Huh. I didn't even think of the property right part. But thanks for pointing that out, Marion. Neil Cattial says, it's going to be very weird if the Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week. Saying it should be left to the states to decide, right after it imposed a constitutional right to conceal and carry firearms. Saying, it cannot be left to the states to decide.
Neil, here's what you're missing, dude.One is actually in the Constitution. It's called the Second Amendment. That tells the federal government, and the states exactly what they can and cannot do. What government cannot do. There is no right to abortion. I -- show it to me. Show it to me. When you can show it to me, I will change my argument. That, when it's not in -- I'll talk slowly for you, Neil.
When it's not in the Constitution, then, there's this part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's -- it's -- just look for the number ten. Okay? And that says anything that's not specifically in the Constitution. That goes then to the states. Yeah. Look at you. You're going to read something.
Jill Flipuffock says -- says the kind of people who desperately want to carry concealed weapons in public, is based on a generalized interest in self-defense are precisely the kind of paranoid, insecure, violence, fetishizing people, who should not be able to carry a concealed weapon in public. Okay. So let me get this right.
If you want to carry one, you're the kind that shouldn't carry one. So, in other words, when -- this is right. Jill, my gosh, my whole world is changing. Thank you for this. Now I understand when Martin Luther King went in and said to the state officials, hey. I need to have a concealed carry permit. He's exactly the kind of guy, you Democrats didn't want to carry a gun.
Yes! Jill, thank you for that enlightenment. David Hogged says, you're entitled to your opinion. But not your own facts. And like your own facts, you're not entitled to your own history. That's exactly what the Supreme Court decision is. It's a reversal of 200 years of jurisprudence that will get Americans killed. David, David
Have you read a book? Come on. Do you know anything at all -- name three founders. Can you do it? Right now, think. Go. Can't do it, David. 200 years.
Our -- the only times -- the only times in our history, and you wouldn't know this. Because you bury all the left. Buries the Democratic history.
The only time that we have any kind of history, where we're taking guns away from people, is when the government is afraid of those people. When the government gets really, really racist. Okay? That's why the Indians, yeah. That's why they're living on reservations now. Because we took away their guns. Yeah. Yeah.
That's why after the Civil War. And before the Civil War, slaves could not have guns. Why?
Because they might defend themselves. And then, after they were freed, oh, my gosh, the Democrats freaked out. Those freed slaves, will have a way to protect themselves. And they got it done through all kinds of laws, kind of like what you're doing now.
Thank you, David for writing in. You're special. March for Our Lives. Blue checkmark said yesterday.
The court's decision is dangerous. And deadly. The unfairly nominated blatantly partisan justices put the Second Amendment over our lives. No. I -- I -- may I quote the Princess Bride? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Okay?
Second Amendment is there, to protect our lives. To protect our property. And to protect our freedom.
I just want to throw that one out. The blood of American people who die from needless gun violence will be on their corrupt hands.
Okay. Wahajit Ali (phonetic) said, let's have a bunch of black, brown, and Muslim folks carry large guns in predominantly white neighborhoods.
I know the Second Amendment advocates will say that's great and encourage it. Because American history proves otherwise. We might get gun control. But we would also get a lot of chalk outlines.(laughter)Mr. Ali, you are so funny.
See, what you fail to recognize is that all of the people that you say are racist, aren't racist.
There are racists in this country, a lot of them seem to come from the left. You know, like the socialist Klan members. Or the socialist Nazi members. You see what they have both in common?
Yeah. Democratic Party. Anyway, Mr. Alley, if someone wants to carry a gun. And they're a Muslim. I have absolutely no problem. You're brown, you're pink, you're polka dot. You have covid and you're not wearing a mask. Or you don't have covid, and you're wearing 20 masks. And you want to carry a gun. I'm totally fine with that. Now, if you get a bunch of people. And, again, I don't care what color they are. Marching down my neighborhood, with large guns. Yeah. I am going to call the police because that's unusual.
What are you doing? We're just marching with our guns. Why in my neighborhood at night?
None of your business. Does Kavanaugh live around here? See, there's a difference. There's a difference. Right-wingers can freak out about nullification or packing or whatever.
No one cares. You broke all the norms of decency, democracy, and fairness. Oh, my gosh. Oh, wait. Wait.
This is from David Atkins. He has a great solution. At the end of the day, California and New York are not going to let Wyoming and Idaho tell us how we have to live in a Mad Max gun climate hell.
Oh, my gosh. David, let's break some bread, baby. Let's come together. Yeah. All right. Let me do my best Marianne Williamson.
Yeah. Yeah. Because we can come together. What you just said is the point of the Tenth Amendment. California and New York, I don't want to live like them.
You don't want to live like us. So let's not. Let's not. However, there are ten big things. And I've heard they've added to these. But there are ten big things, that no government in the United States of America, can do. Now, you want to change that, let's change it. Because what's so crazy, is there's this thing called the amendment process. You want to change the Constitution, you don't -- what -- all norms of decency. Democracy and fairness. You don't break those.
You want to change those amendments. You can do it. All you have to do is go through the amendment process. And then if you say, everybody has to have a pig on their lap. You get the states to vote for that. Put it on the amendment. You have it. Now, probably there would be another amendment that comes later. That says, hey, the big in the lap thing is really, really, stupid, and I think America lost its mind temporarily. So we're going to scratch that one out. From here on out, no. Absolute must have a pig on your lap kind of loss. Okay?
But both of those would be done through the amendment process. That would be doing it the decent way, the fair way, and the Democratic way. But David, you are cute. When you think, you're cute. Tristan Schnell writes in, when American service members die oversees, their caskets are brought to Dover Air Force base to be displayed and mourned. No, they're not displayed. I don't know if you've noticed this. But we try not to display the dead. But when Americans die because of gun violence, their caskets should be brought to the steps of the Supreme Court. So the justices can see what they've done. Yeah.
Tristan, I like that. Why don't we take every baby that's been aborted, and put them in a bucket. I mean, we're going to need a big bucket. Because there's millions of those.
And let's dump them, on the front steps of the Supreme Court. So they can see what they've done. Wow!
I got to thank all the blue checkmarks. Because you've really turned me around.


Why the Fed’s ‘MATH PROBLEM’ may result in MORE inflation

Yes, it’s possible for our economy to suffer from extremely high inflation while certain goods, products, and services experience DEFLATION as well, Carol Roth — a financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business’ — tells Glenn. The Fed actually is TRYING to deflate the economy, Roth explains. But while they’re saying one thing, the Fed’s current policy shows the exact opposite. And that ‘math problem,’ Roth says, is what could cause our economy to experience even more, ‘prolonged’ inflation. It’s a ‘dire situation,’ and there seems to be ZERO leadership willing to fix it…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Is it not possible to have super high inflation, on some products. And super low deflation. Prices that are -- that are crazy.

Because they -- nobody is buying them, in other categories. Is that possible to have both of those?

CAROL: Yeah. I think that the best analogy for that would be kind of the '70s. And something that looks for stagflation. Where the economy stagnates. And it stagnates, like you said, because all the money has been sucked up in a couple of categories. And there really is a lot to go around in other places. There's not a lot of investments being made, and what not. But we still end up having high inflation. And we are certainly, a lot of people feel like we're in that sort of stagflation, you know, arena, right now. And it can continue on the trajectory. But you have to remember in terms of deflation. I mean, that's what the Federal Reserve is trying to do. They are actively trying to deflate, you know, not just the bubbles and assets, but they're trying to deflate spending, to cool off the economy. That's why they're shutting off their balance sheets. That's why they're raising their interest rates. It's meant to cool off demand. And that's the math problem that I keep talking about. They keep saying, oh, the consumer. And businesses are going to save us from a recession. But at the same time, the policy is meant to do the exact opposite. The policy is meant to make it, so that people aren't able to spend in the same way. So those two objectives are at odds with each other. And so I do think, that we could end up in this prolonged period, like you said, where the inflation hasn't quite gotten under control. Especially since we have so many supply demand imbalances in our economy. We have a labor imbalance. We have a food imbalance. We have an energy imbalance. And we have a commodity imbalance. And that's not going to it be solved by any monetary policy. That requires real action. And we don't have leadership, that's willing to lead or frankly do anything.

GLENN: So we have -- as I see it, we're looking at a situation. Again, I'm going back. And please, correct me where my thinking is off. But I'm going back to the Great Depression. So people were afraid. They held on to their money. They spent what they had to, and what they could afford. But nothing else.

That caused the labor market to shoot out of control. To -- to about 25 percent unemployment. Because the factories were closing down. Because no one was buying anything, from the factories. Which then, in turn, made FDR say, we're going to build the Hoover damn, to give people jobs. But it was all the government money, which would have just caused more inflation, if I'm not mistaken. Had it not been for the -- and I hate to say it this way. But the saving grace of the Second World War. Right? Were we in a death spiral? I mean, the war was definitely a different kind of reset. And I think a lot of the logic that you're talking about makes sense. If consumer sentiment is really important. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people don't feel confident, they don't go out and spend. They're worried about their inflation. And being able to feed their family. And get to work. They aren't going to spend -- I think there are a couple of things that we have that are different. And it's not necessarily better for the average American. So I just want to be clear. That I'm on your side, and I'm not saying that it's better.

But because of this huge supply and demand imbalance. We have two jobs available for every person looking. The likelihood is that that probably contracts to be, you know, a better match, than having massive unemployment just because of that scenario is going on. And we also have a whole slew of Americans, who are doing -- you know, have done very well. They have been the beneficiaries of this giant wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street. So I think we're going to have a lot of, you know, different outcomes. You know, that inadequately, that's been driven by government policy. And that's never a good thing. Because, you know, the social unrest that comes with it. And rightfully so. Because, you know, these policies have really put the middle class. The working class. And in some cases, the lower class, at risk, to the benefit of the people on the inside. And so the numbers on average, may not show how dire the situation is. And so they'll be able to spend. And say, oh, everything is great. And the consumer is doing well, when people are really struggling. And, you know, that's going to be when we continue to just be furious. And, you know, demand something be done about that.

GLENN: Carol, thank you so much for everything that you do.

She's just issued a new paper. A new piece for TheBlaze. What the heck is going on in bitcoin. And you can find that at What is going on with bitcoin, by Carol Roth. Thanks, Carol. God bless.


Glenn: I didn't think Roe v Wade would end in my lifetime

GLENN: We just have to take a minute, and just think of the miracle we just witnessed.

There isn't a soul, not one soul, in this audience that thought that this would happen. Like this. This fast.

I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime.


'This is how I spend my vacation': Glenn gives behind-the-scenes look at new radio theme recording

If you have ever wondered where Glenn gets the music for his radio show or assumed he used pre-made stock music or cheap computer software, now you know, it’s the real deal. Glenn's vacation technically started this week, but that couldn't keep him away from his natural habitat—the recording studio—where he spent several hours working on an updated radio theme track with pro composer Sam Cardon and Millennial Choirs & Orchestras (MCO).

Glenn was looking for something that sounded more urgent, and from the preview Glenn shared, it sounds like the creative team nailed it. The epic score sounds like it would easily feel at home in a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars film.

The new theme will be on air at a future date, but if you can’t wait, make sure to watch the video for a sneak peak!