RADIO

White House TARGETS ammunition sales with ‘INSIDIOUS’ plan

Thanks to a recent report from The Federalist, we now know of an ‘insidious’ White House plan to significantly alter commercial sales of ammunition. But not only would this plot skyrocket the price of ammunition for everyday consumers, but it could create a national security risk by limiting one factory’s ability to produce for the military under war-time demand as well. Larry Keane, from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, joins Glenn to detail this White House move, and he explains how he knows the government is LYING about it too.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There was a story, I think it was last week in the Federalist. And we saw it. And we began to do our own homework on it. Because it was very, very disturbing. And it came out of the Federalist. While Democrats claimed to engage in talks on bipartisan gun legislation in good faith, the White House is behind the scenes, trying to shut down nationwide ammunition sales. In northwestern Missouri, major government-owned ammunition plant is now facing closure, as the Biden administration escalates its war on American gun owners. The Lake City ammunition factory is one of the largest manufacturers of -- of 556 and 223 ammunition, which is the most popular caliber for the most targeted firearm in the country, the AR-15. In operation since 1941 to produce ammunition for the U.S. Army. The government contracts with the private firm, Winchester, to run the enterprise. And sell any excess supplies to the open market. So here's what happened: Winchester called them. I'm sorry. The government called Winchester. Apparently, allegedly. And said, you know, you've got a cute little business going on here. And it would be horrible for something to happen to that business. You know what I'm saying? So what I would like you to do is maybe -- maybe stop selling the 30 percent of the ammunition, to the private market. And Winchester said, most likely, well, if we do that, then if there's a war, we can't ramp up to be able to make more ammunition for the war machine. I don't think you heard me. You're going to stop selling that ammunition. Now, celebrity voices are impersonated in this scenario. But I think that's pretty much what happened there. Otherwise, maybe we find somebody else to make our ammunition. You know what I'm saying?
So public/private partnerships always work out so very well. So we started doing our homework. It looks like Susan Rice was involved in this. But, again, nobody is talking because they're all afraid of their legs being broken. One group, that we have spoke to, that knows the situation. Very well. Is the national shooting sports foundation. And we have Larry Keen on with us. Hello, Larry. How are you?
LARRY: Good to be with you, Glenn. How are you?
GLENN: Very good. Very good. So, you know, I know -- I know it wasn't quite as mob-like. Perhaps with Susan Rice involved. Maybe it was more. But can you tell me, is the just of what I just said correct?
LARRY: Basically, yes. Winchester was contacted by the army. That runs or owns the Lake City amnesty facility. That Winchester runs under our contract. And they were told that the army is considering issuing a policy edict, which Winchester would no longer be able to sell into the commercial market. Excess ammunition. Above the needs of the military. To the commercial market. Which it counts for -- between 30 and 40 percent of the market for 556 ammunition. Which is the caliber most commonly chambered for modern sporting rifles, including AR-15.
GLENN: That's crazy.
LARRY: So that's going into effect on the commercial market for gun owners, as well as to harm national security and military preparedness.
GLENN: So there's a couple of things here. First of all, let's talk about the commercial side. The commercial side. You dropped 30 to 40 percent. Your price. I've read your price of ammunition would go up three to four times. Is that true?
LARRY: Obviously, you know, economics being supply and demand. If you cut the supply, there's already strain by 30-plus percent. It's going to have a significant impact on a price in the commercial market. For sure. It's also going to have an impact on what the military pays for ammunition, manufactured at the Lake City facility. Because the cost -- the economics of running that business, for Winchester would change dramatically.
GLENN: So the other -- the other part of this is for the military, not just in cost. But the reason why, if I'm not mistaken. The reason why Winchester has that 30 percent, and they make 30 or 40 percent of the commercial market. Is so they have the staff, in case there's ever a major war. They have the staff. They don't have to ramp up. They can just shift all of that over to the military, immediately. So we have enough adjust to be able to fight a war. Is that true?
LARRY: That's precisely correct. And if they can't sell us to the commercial market, those employees are gone. Our production capacity is gone. In a surgery situation. Let's say hypothetically, we were engaged in a shooting war, with an adversary like Russia or China or something. The ability to Winchester to meet that surge and demand would not exist. You would not be able to meet that need. Whereas, now they can. They can simply shift that production to commercial market, to the priority of meeting the needs of the war fighter. So that ability is gone, and we can't meet surge and demands. And the price that the military pays for the ammunition they get now, even in a non-surge situation, would go up considerably. And the salience of the commercial market, also helps to fund capital expenditures. At the Lake City facility. So it's not just that Winchester sells that ammunition in the commercial market. They -- they also are putting money back into the POD, to -- for capital improvements. Capital expenditures at Lake City. So that it is paid and can meet surge demand for the military.
GLENN: So as this was revealed last week, we had some congressmen start to write some letters to the White House. Some press started to sniff around, at least on the right side. We started to sniff around. And immediately, the gates are closed to the White House. And they say, this is -- and I want to quote them here. The reports on a possible ban are way off. Uh-huh.
Do you believe that?
LARRY: The person making that is either woefully uninformed of the facts, because there was a meeting at the highest levels of the military on Friday. To discuss this very issue. Or, they are not being truthful. But it -- it happened. It is happening. And there is a letter from 50 House members that has gone to the White House yesterday, led by Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, in whose district the Lake City facility is located. And Senator Blunt's office from Missouri has been engaged in this issue as well. So in 2015, the Obama administration tried to ban this ammunition, under this incorrect legal feeling that it was somehow armor-piercing ammunition. It is not by definition, armor-piercing ammunition.
GLENN: Okay. Hold on. Hold on just a second. Because that's really important. Because I just read another story today. That said, this is armor-piercing ammunition. Now, you say by definition, it's not. What does that mean?
LARRY: Go look up the gun control act. Section 921. And you can find the definition for armored-piercing ammunition. And if you look at this M85532 ammunition, it does is not meet the definition of armor-piercing ammunition. It is not by law, armor-piercing ammunition. So the Obama administration's effort in 2015, to somehow declare an armored-piercing ammunition was withdrawn. And when this was a reaction by Congress, and there were over 300,000 comments. Public comments to a notice that ATF had put out. They backed off. Unable to make it illegal. The Biden administration now is trying to make it unavailable. This is all because they can't pass a ban on modern sports rifles. So if you can't -- ban the ammunition.
GLENN: Without burning any bridges here, because I think it's very important that we know the truth. And I certainly don't want to cause any trouble. How do we know your information is accurate? How do we know the White House is lying here?
LARRY: We have had direct conversations with officials at Winchester. And we've had conversations with staff and Senator Blunt and Congresswoman Hartzler's office. So this is, in fact, happening. And they may have decided, they've been caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. But for them to say, it was never under consideration. Again, either the person making that statement is woefully uninformed of the true facts, or is misleading the public.
GLENN: Another way of saying that is lying. The White House has been lying about many things they continue to say. Things are conspiracy theories. Or they're -- or inaccurate. And then all of a sudden, what do you know? It turns out to be true. Has this stopped? Do you know? Is the pressure off of -- of Winchester? Is this not going through now that they've been nabbed?
LARRY: We have not been informed, that -- that this -- this definitively has been withdrawn, and is no longer being considered. But this -- you know, this is not the first time we've seen an effort by first Obama. Now Biden. To ban this ammunition. To make it unavailable. So we are going to continue to pursue this issue. To ensure that this is not -- no longer a recurring problem. And that -- that whoever holds the contract, for the Lake City facility, has the right to sell this excess ammunition, into the commercial market. Because, again, it's necessary for military preparedness. It's important for the taxpayer. And it helps to fund capital expenditures, at the facility. And it's important obviously for Second Amendment rights, for the exercise.
GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. Larry, is there anything the public can do?
LARRY: They should contact their elected representatives in Washington. Their congressmen. And their representatives. And insist that this issue be fixed once and for all. So we don't have to visit it every couple of years.
GLENN: And how do we fix it once and for all?
LARRY: We make it clear in statute, that whoever holds that contract has the right to sell this excess ammunition in the commercial market for the reasons we've just talked about.
GLENN: Okay. Thank you so much. Larry, I appreciate it.
I appreciate everything that you guys are doing, keeping our second amendment right safe. Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll stay in touch. That's Larry King. He's from the national shooting sports foundation about the Missouri ammunition plant that the Biden administration is trying to curtail, which would cut off a third to 40 percent of the 223 and 556 ammunition, which is the ammunition used by modern sporting rifles.
All right. Our sponsor this half-hour is Relief Factor. Brian wrote in about his experience with Relief Factor. He said, I was suffering with a ton of shoulder pain. And I actually thought, I should have surgery on it. But decided, before I do that, I'll try Relief Factor. Well, he said, the pain literally went away within the first three takes. Brian, that is great news.
Taking Relief Factor will relieve so much pain. I've been on it, for several years now, and I used to be in the kind of pain that I'm in today. Because I'm up in the high altitude. And it's very cold up in the mountains. And I haven't had this pain for quite some time. And very rarely does the pain break through, with Relief Factor.
I used to be in this kind of pain. I couldn't paint. I couldn't use my hands when I was like this, all the time. It's been years since I have felt like this.
And I think it's just the season up here. Anyway, Relief Factor, it works. It works for me. It gave me my life back. I kind of forgot what it was like to live with pain all the time. ReliefFactor.com. Call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief.It's relieffactor.com. Ten-second station ID.(music)Welcome to the program. Stu Burguiere, our executive producer. I find this story that's coming out of Missouri to be really insidious. Again, the president said yesterday, he was talking about gun control. And he said, there's many ways to skin a cat. And believe me, they're going to use every way to skin a cat. Here's the one thing that the Democrats are very good at, that the Republicans suck at. And that is, while they're not in power, they are making plans. And the plans that were being laid before Biden won the White House, and we know because we reported. They were open about it. And we reported on it. They had committees, getting together, to find out, to look at all of the cabinet positions, and to see what instruments they had, or could be construed as having, that they could turn those levels, and change the way of our life, without going to Congress. This is one of them. And, you know, if the White House wants us to believe that they're not doing this. You know, it's -- it's a bridge too far. Because you would have to ask yourself, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you be doing this? This is what ESG is all about. Why wouldn't you be shutting down the things -- the -- all of the funding, to things that affect global warning, or things that help guns. On the street.
Of course, you would. If that's the way you're operating, through an administrative arm, why wouldn't you be doing it? Of course, they're doing it. Of course, they are. And it's very, very dangerous.
STU: Yeah. There's an interview with Chris Murphy, the guy who is negotiating the bipartisan gun control bill. And it was with the New York Times. So it was arguing -- the Times was basically saying, wait. You're not getting enough here. You're not getting enough here. You need to get more. And his position was, look, what we need to do is pass this even if it's not the best bill in the world. Because the goal of this is not just to save lives. But it's also to convince Republicans that the sky do fall on them politically, if this thing passes.
We just need to show them, that if they go along with some of this. They're not going to get punished, like they think they will. They're always scared of the sky falling. We need to show them that the sky won't fall. So it's really up to us. To make sure if something like this passes, to remind the Republicans that, yes. The sky will fall, if you do something like this. It will. And we need to make sure it does.
GLENN: Besides Cornyn, who is -- because, I mean, the phone should light up at Senator Cornyn's office. If you're in Texas. Can you give me the names of all the people that are involved in this, on the Republican side? Because the sky needs to fall in on them right now right now. It needs to fall in.
STU: Yeah. So four of them I think are retiring. The other six are not up for election this year.
GLENN: What cowards. What cowards.
STU: And, honestly, you would trade -- I would trade nine of these senators for one toasted cheddar Chalupa from -- from Taco Bell. Only one who has been any value in the group of ten is Pat Toomey, who has always been a pretty good senator with one exception, which has been guns. Other than that, he's been pretty good, but the other nine are just, you know, garbage.
GLENN: I think that -- I think that you're asking too much to trade. All of those senators.
STU: One Chalupa?
GLENN: No. I don't think so. I mean, stop being unreasonable. We're negotiating here.

RADIO

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...

Transcript

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.

RADIO

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…

Transcript

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 TheBlaze.com. TheBlaze.com. What is going on with bitcoin, by Carol Roth. Thanks, Carol. God bless.

Shorts

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.

BEHIND THE SCENES

'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!