Health Update: Glenn's dog Victor

December 13, 2012

Writer

Last night, Glenn told the audience about the health problems facing his dog Victor as he is getting older. Glenn gave an update on Victor's health this morning, and the difficult choice facing his family about how to handle his failing health.

" We have ‑‑ we have gotten an awful lot of mail from last night's episode of the program. We talked about The Hobbit but at the end, the last four or five minutes, I... I just, I did a little tribute to my dog Victor who, if you are a long‑time listener of this program, you know Victor. We used to talk about him all the time. He used to come to work with me because he's a service dog and Victor has been at my side for, well, shortly after 9/11," Glenn said.

"Our lives have changed so much. At that time we didn't want to get a gun because neither of us grew up with a gun and we were like, 'I'm not responsible enough.' Well, get over that, dummy. Why don't you become responsible enough."

"But we decided we didn't want to get a gun. We decided we would get a dog. And we got Victor, and I'll never forget. I was on tour. We got Victor from this great place called Harrison K‑9 and these are amazing dogs, amazing, amazing dogs and they love them and they ‑‑ they go over to Germany and find these dogs for you. They ask you exactly what your situation is. They don't sell them to everybody because they don't like people who want, like, attack dogs. And these are working dogs and so they ask you your situation and then they go over to Germany and try to find the right dog for you and then they train him. He's already been in three years of training over in Germany and then they tune him for your family. And we wanted a dog that could rip somebody's throat out but also be with the family and be good with the kids. And we didn't have any kids at the time, and Victor, when we were going through our trouble trying to have another child, Victor was kind of our child."

"And I remember having a conversation with Victor right before Raphe was born because Tania was down on the ground with him, and she was every night. And she was laying down on the ground with him in the bedroom and she was talking to him and rubbing his face and I said, 'Oh, poor Victor. Victor, Mommy is not ‑‑ Mommy is going to be like, what is this dog doing. The minute this baby is born, you better be on your best behavior because now the firstborn is not quite as special.'"

"And I think Victor took my advice, and I will never forget when Raphe was old enough to sit on my lap, I was on the phone talking to somebody and I was holding Raphe on my lap and Victor was sitting there at my knee. And Raphe was, like, moving really hard and I'm like, 'What are you doing?' And I looked down and he has Victor by the fangs, in this giant mouth. I mean, this dog is gigantic. He used to look like a lion. And he had him by the canine teeth and he was rocking his face back and forth like it was a ride, like those were the handlebars of this giant mouth ride that he was in. And Victor was just looking up at me like, 'You know I could take his hands right now but I won't because I love you.'"

"He's the best dog in the world. And I got home last night and the phone was ringing and everybody was calling and I didn't want to talk to anybody and my wife just looked at me and said, 'What did you do?' And I said, 'I just talked about Victor on the air and the decisions that we have to make.' And she said, 'He's fine.' And I said, 'Uh‑huh.' And he goes through these spurts where ‑‑ he's approaching 13. He's 12 now. For a pure bred German Shepherd that's like 1,000. And he goes through these periods of real pain. And he was standing in the living room yesterday by himself and I walk in and he's just, he's whimpering. And I went over and I ‑‑ I held him. And he goes through these periods where he seems to be fine and then he can't get up and he's dragging his feet behind him. And we're stuck in this place that we love him so much."

"And I find myself having these odd Margaret Sanger conversations in my head, that life is life and who am I to say when it's time for him to go. But I again don't know. I don't want him in pain. I don't want him to ‑‑ he's ‑‑ he's blind now and he's ‑‑ at times he's the same old Victor. But when do you know?"

Glenn explained that he has wondered if the best thing for Victor would be to put him to sleep, which prompted a conversation between everyone about euthanasia in both people and animals.

Read the transcript of the conversation below:

GLENN: We were talking about this in the office this morning, and Stu is I guess my angel on one shoulder saying life is life and you don't do it. And Pat is the other good angel on my shoulder saying you don't let him suffer. And I'm in the middle saying I... my whole family isn't even convinced that he's suffering. And I don't know if we're in denial or if I'm trying to just get past it. It's a tough decision.
STU: I mean, you know, you're ‑‑ it's impossible obviously, but you're in a ‑‑ you're trying to make a, essentially a quality of life judgment.
GLENN: You're making a God decision.
STU: Yeah. And especially if there's ‑‑ if there's doubt. I mean, if there's ‑‑ you know, if the doctor is saying he's not in that much pain.
GLENN: I don't know. The doctor is ‑‑ I mean, first of all, how do you know a dog is in pain?
STU: Yeah, but you're not erring on the side of life, though, I mean at that point. If the medical information, people in your family think that he's okay.
GLENN: No, nobody thinks that he's okay.
STU: Not okay. You know, he might be in pain but you don't ‑‑ there's a certain amount of pain that everybody has. If he's ‑‑ if the doctors are saying it's not that bad, to me you don't want to err on the side of saying, "No, I think he is in that much pain, therefore we should end life."
GLENN: He has an IV in his leg. He has an ulcer in his eye. So his eyes are bleeding. So his eyes are red. So he's looking. He can't see out of his eye anymore. He's dragging his legs behind him. He's, times can't get up. Sometimes he can.
Like last night the doctor put him ‑‑ you know, gave him, just gave him some medicine. You know, he's been on IV, blah, blah‑blah. He comes home, she says give him this dog food. I haven't seen him run to the bowl of food for I don't know how long. We've had to hand‑feed him for a while because he just can't even ‑‑ he can just barely even stand. He can't stand up and put his head down in the bowl anymore. And ‑‑ but in the last, now like the last 36 hours, where two days ago... I wrote my kids and said, (inaudible). And last night he runs to his bowl. And it's like...
STU: He is surviving.
PAT: He is.
GLENN: How do you make this decision? How do you make this decision? And, you know, it's really, especially with all this stuff with ObamaCare, you can't make that decision.
PAT: Your dog is not covered, though, by ObamaCare.
STU: No.
PAT: That's not a good thing.
GLENN: You can't, you have these people ‑‑
PAT: Your 42‑year‑old children and your dog.
STU: That's Bo care.
GLENN: You have these panels that will make this decision that will just be cold and calculating.
PAT: Yeah, about humans.
GLENN: About humans.
PAT: About humans. And that's ‑‑ I mean ‑‑
STU: Right.
PAT: It's staggering to think about for a dog. Try it for humans. I mean, it's unbelievable the things we're considering doing and are doing now because ObamaCare is the law of the land.
GLENN: They're starving them to death. Now imagine this. I mean, I would go and put a bullet in his head so fast rather than starving him to death.
PAT: Oh, yeah, it's painful. It's awful. It's awful.
GLENN: Starving him to death would be the most cruel thing possible.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: And that's what they are doing in the British healthcare system now.
PAT: Yeah. To babies.
GLENN: To babies. And to handicap.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Starving people, and the elderly, starving them to death. That's just one of the most cruel things I've ever seen or heard of in my life. I can't ‑‑ I wouldn't do that to my dog. I would ‑‑ I contend they would put me in jail if I did that to Victor, if I starved him to death out of compassion.
STU: And they should.
GLENN: And they should. And yet that's what the healthcare system is doing in England. And that's what we will do here. Because it will be an easier way. We've already done it here. We did it with Terri Schiavo. Just starve them to death. Out of compassion. That's not compassion.
STU: I'm admittedly weird on this issue. I mean, you know, as some people probably know, I'm like the world's only conservative vegetarian and part of the reason for that is that there is part of that that goes into that equation that ‑‑
GLENN: Wow, listen to this. Listen to this. This is new information.
STU: No, it's not.
PAT: We have not heard this yet.
GLENN: We said this about him the minute, and he's like, no, I'm just, I'm tired of meat. Go ahead.
PAT: Go ahead.
STU: Or you could have read it in your own magazine in which I wrote this, Fusion magazine, which is ‑‑
GLENN: We don't hide it in the ‑‑ hide it in the pages of magazines. Who reads magazines?
STU: No, I did ‑‑
PAT: All right. Let's hear it. What's the big admission then?
STU: No, I mean, I have ‑‑ it's not a big admission.
PAT: Yeah, it is. Yeah, it is. You've not admitted it to us on the air.
GLENN: Not on the air.
PAT: Go ahead.
GLENN: Let's hear it.
PAT: Let's hear it.
STU: It's not a big admission at all. I think ‑‑
PAT: Go ahead. Let's hear the little admission.
STU: It's already been admitted in a magazine.
GLENN: Hang on. Take off your leather shoes before you admit this. Go ahead.
STU: These are not leather shoes. However, but I ‑‑
GLENN: We haven't lost you to the no‑leather people, have we?
STU: No. I will say that there's part of me ‑‑ and this did happen for my dog, by the way, in that I don't think ‑‑ I do think that man has domain over animals. I do believe that. But I don't necessarily mean that ‑‑ think that that's a great idea. I still believe in the principle of life. And if it's at all possible, I believe to err on the side of life. That goes with humans and it goes with animals. You know, and I do ‑‑
PAT: So part of this is you don't believe man should eat animals?
STU: No, I don't ‑‑ I feel like I err on the side of life. So like, I don't make that decision for you guys, don't criticize you at all. I've never criticized you for a second. When I really think about it ‑‑
GLENN: But I want you to know we've criticized you.
STU: You have, often.
GLENN: And behind your back.
PAT: And vocally. But much more in front of your back than behind your back.
STU: That's fine. That's fine.
GLENN: Really cruel stuff but I'd have to say that's the really funny stuff, too.
PAT: Of course, of course.
GLENN: Is behind your back.
STU: Is ‑‑ and I believe that. But no, it's a very personal decision. I do not pushy on anybody. I'm not PETA, I'm not taking out billboards telling you shouldn't do it. But my point is that I don't under ‑‑ you know, it comes to that point of here I am. If I feel like you, Glenn, with my dog, I will probably be out of work for a week when that dog dies. I will be absolutely crushed and unable to do anything. And, you know, I'll go to the point of taking the dog to the vet all the time and all these crazy things I'll do to keep this dog alive, but that's just because I know this dog. The only difference between this dog and all these other animals that I would normally have on an egg sandwich is the fact that I've never met them and I have no relationship with them.
GLENN: That's why Raphe said to me the other day ‑‑
STU: Why I feel it's inconsistent.
GLENN: ‑‑ "I don't want to eat chicken." He's a kid who just won't eat anything. I mean, we can put anything in front of him and he's got a reason not to eat it. He just won't eat it. He will power eat morning for breakfast. He will eat like 14 bowls of cereal, eggs, bacon, anything you put in front of him. God help you if you get your hands in front of the boy in the morning. But by night, he's just not interested. And so it was an excuse, but I think there was a little bit of it. He said, "I don't want chicken." I said, Raphe, you like chicken. "No, I don't want chicken. I don't like chicken." Well, that's what we're... arghhhh! Man, it's a good thing my grandfather does not live anywhere near this boy. But he said, I don't want chicken because I don't... "Why?" "Because it reminds me of my chicken." And I said, "What's the first thing I told you when we got chickens?" "I know, don't name the chickens." That's right.
STU: But why ‑‑ I mean, and this is my point. It's an argument of are you pro life or are you pro personality. When you have a relationship with a specific animal ‑‑
GLENN: No, I'm pro life.
STU: ‑‑ you want to keep it alive at all costs. It's the Charlotte's Web thing. It's like Wilbur because a stupid spider can put a name above his head, all of a sudden you save him.
GLENN: When it comes to ‑‑ first of all, I don't equate animal life the same as human life.
STU: I agree.
GLENN: There's a big difference there.
STU: There's a big difference there. And if I was starve, I would absolutely eat ‑‑
GLENN: That's why I don't eat veal, and I am vocal about this, I don't eat veal because I think it's wrong to torture your food to make it taste better. It's just not ‑‑ that's just beyond unethical. That's just evil. You don't torture your food to make it taste better. No, definitely not.
STU: There was a little hesitation there.
GLENN: I just wanted to make sure. I was... however, when it comes to your mixing in eating with saving your dog, I don't believe in this, I just don't believe in ‑‑ you know, if you have the money, like you have the money. Go ahead and do the CAT scans and the, you know, all of the, you know, plastic surgery, you'll never change your pug's face but do all of that you want, whatever, if that's good for the dog, if it's ‑‑
STU: Right.
GLENN: But these people, people will get into debt with chemotherapy.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: And if you have the money, that's fine. But I don't ‑‑ I don't understand. And I would do it for my dog but I ‑‑
PAT: Me, too.
GLENN: But you look at it and you think, I don't know if this is even right. It is if you have the money. But if you are putting your family in jeopardy for it, I mean, there is something to be said with your family first. And I know.
PAT: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: The dog is a member of the family.
STU: That's tough.
GLENN: I know.
STU: You have to put your family first.
GLENN: It's awful.
STU: You have to do that. But, like, that stupid question kind of stuck in my head is why don't I eat my dog? Why don't I? The reason I don't do it is probably taste. I don't know what dogs taste like but people on farms will tell you that they have cows that they love and why don't I eat them? Why don't I eat ‑‑ why don't they eat Wilbur? They don't eat Wilbur because they have a relationship with Wilbur. And if you can have a relationship with Wilbur, then why don't you consider that in the equation? I still believe that man is superior. I'm not some crazy, like, I don't think I'm pushing anything on anybody. But it's something, I feel like as a conservative who wants to remain consistent ‑‑
PAT: Listen to this. This is pretty new information.
GLENN: We've lost him.
PAT: This is new information.
STU: It's all in the article eight years ago.
GLENN: He's going to be wearing Birkenstocks.
PAT: We don't read you dumb articles.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
PAT: I mean, we read everything else in TheBlaze magazine.
GLENN: Have you read ‑‑
PAT: And don't read yours, Stu?
GLENN: Have you read Agenda 21 yet?

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

me liking tweets celebrating the assassination of the united healthcare ceo pic.twitter.com/N41w51ZuZR
— 🔻 (@pegasustits) December 5, 2024

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

A liberal TikToker is selling a t-shirt that glorifies the recent assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in NYC.
“deny , defend, depose” was reported to have been on the shell casings. pic.twitter.com/IWpHYkx2lF
— SteveSant66 🇺🇸 (@SSant66) December 8, 2024

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.

Glenn's Show Prep