Rick Santorum launches "Patriot Voices"

June 11, 2012

Writer

After a campaign that didn't quite get a candidate where they he or she wanted to go, many are willing to happily sink into the backgrund or launch new careers. Some end up on cable news, while others try their hand at radio. And while many still support the principles they campaigned on, fewer have taken an active role in shaping the elections once they've left their candidacy. Rick Santorum, who arguably was the closest to winning the nomination behind Romney, has decided to continue to stand for conservative principles with his new 501(c)4 organization Patriot Voices, "a grassroots and online community of Americans from across the country committed to promoting faith, family, freedom and opportunity in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Transcript of the the interview is below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is here. Oh, jeez, now he's got another website to push. Jeez, I thought we just got out of this Rick Santorumforpresident.org thing and now Pat, every time he's going to talk to him, is going to say patriotvoices.org.

Rick, how are you, sir?

SANTORUM: I thought I was listening to, like, a speech at the academy awards. I mean...

GLENN: Except you don't get a trophy at the ‑‑ you don't get a trophy.

SANTORUM: I want to thank my mom, I want to thank my mom and... no, that was good. Congratulations on the contract.

GLENN: Thank you very much.

SANTORUM: That's good job. Good job. Congratulations and many, many more.

GLENN: Let's talk about you because you're making me wildly uncomfortable talking about me. I don't do it very often. Let me ‑‑

STU: Okay. By the way, you can hear all this on GBTV.

GLENN: Come on! I was the only one who stood up in that meeting and said it shouldn't be named that!

SANTORUM: I never hear you pitching anything on the show.

GLENN: Shush, shush, shush. It's making me very uncomfortable.

SANTORUM: Yes, of course.

GLENN: All right. So Rick, people say that you launched this thing this weekend, patriotvoices.org, which is a 50 ‑‑ 501 ‑‑

SANTORUM: (C)(4).

GLENN: (C)(4).

SANTORUM: Right.

GLENN: Which means ‑‑

PAT: You're running for president in 2016. Basically, essentially that's what it means, doesn't it?

SANTORUM: No, it doesn't. It means we want to be active as much. I can't go out and say this was the most important election in the history of our country and as I was out on the campaign trail and then because the campaign wasn't ultimately successful in making me the nominee, I'm going to pack up my bags and go home. I mean, we have hundreds of thousands of folks who have signed up to help us, we have over 3 1/2 million votes and we have a lot of folks that we hear from a regular basis that want to keep the things that we talked about during the campaign out there and have concerns about the Republican establishment and going forward and whether conservatism is going to, you know, it's going to be front and center and so we're going to use this organization to try to, you know, keep those issues out there, help candidates that support those issues. And I've made it very clear one of the objections is to make sure that Barack Obama's defeated and that we elect a House and a Senate that can get some of the things that are necessary to get done in this country.

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: So this is part of how we're going to help going forward.

GLENN: All right. So help me out. Because Rand Paul came out and he's getting all sorts of heat. And, of course, you're a neocon, too. Rand Paul came out and endorsed Mitt Romney, and immediately he is the Antichrist with the libertarian right and, you know, is, you know, fighting for the destruction of America somehow or another. Can you please explain how a vote that isn't cast is a vote for Barack Obama and what the differences are between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, in case anybody is unclear?

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, Barack Obama's trying to fundamentally restructure America into a country that is unlike the country that we were founded to be and that made us the greatest country in the history of the world. That's the premise of my campaign. That hasn't changed. Barack Obama has a fundamentally different view of what America should be. And it's rooted, as you've talked about in his history which, of course, nobody wants to talk about, but it's been displayed clearly in his public policies which are oriented toward accumulating more power and control into Washington, D.C. It's the destruction of dissemination of the family and media institutions between the individual and government. I mean, it is a comprehensive agenda. Let's just be very clear about this. What Barack Obama wants to do to this country and make it into a European social welfare state and that's probably the kindest thing I could say about what his objective is. Mitt Romney and I have some differences on issues. Mitt Romney understands the greatness of America. He understands the foundational premise of America, limited government, free people, strong families and strong communities. He may not have in my opinion adhered to that on everything he's ever done but his foundational understanding of free enterprise and capitalism and limited government and strong family and media institutions, I have no question about. And that is a fundamental difference between these two candidates that has to be laid out and laid out clearly. Anybody who chooses to step aside in this battle has stepped ‑‑ has basically disarmed themselves and in so doing enabled ‑‑ who otherwise I think would vote for Romney have enabled the other side to have the upper hand.

GLENN: Okay. So your, your objective with Patriot Voices is to stand, to obviously stand, you know, against Barack Obama but will you also ‑‑ let me just ask the question: Will you also stand ‑‑ when Romney wins, will you stand against the GOP and Romney if they start more of this bailout nonsense and everything else?

SANTORUM: Yeah. I've been clear about that. We're here to support candidates that are the best candidates available out there to forward the American exceptionalism view of public policy is to, you know, limited government, free people, strong families, et cetera. At the same time we're going to be here past the election, we're going to be here during the election, and we're going to be an issue‑oriented organization. We are going to hold, whether it's Governor Romney or others, accountable for their campaigns as well as what they do if they're successful in their campaign.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: I know you're for Ted Cruz and you're for Liljenquist, are you not, in Utah?

SANTORUM: I haven't done the official endorsements of that but I have, in fact the last time I talked about this officially was on your show, but for me it's important that we have a strong principle ‑‑ if we can't elect a strong vocal principle conservative in Texas and Utah, what hope do we have? We're not going to elect them in Massachusetts and Maine. We have to go to the states where we can elect these types of real, you know, transformational conservative figures in states that can elect transformational conservative figures, and certainly Utah and Texas are two of them and to me the race is pretty clear as to who those figures are and it's Liljenquist and Cruz.

GLENN: Orrin Hatch has to be a friend of yours.

SANTORUM: Orrin's a good man. I like Orrin. I really do. But, you know, he's been very kind to me over the years but it's time for Utah to have another Mike Lee, someone who's making a difference down there in Washington, D.C.

GLENN: What do you think of Rubio?

SANTORUM: I like what I hear. I mean, I think he's a dynamic, articulate spokesperson. I think he has, you know, he has really a gift to be able to communicate in a very compelling way a vision for the country. I think he's got the vision thing down very well. I may not agree with him on every single issue. He represents a different constituency in Florida than I did in Pennsylvania, but I think he's a great future leader of our country.

GLENN: Is he a ‑‑ is he a ‑‑ is he a true small government conservative?

SANTORUM: Like I said, he represents different constituencies in Florida than I do and there are some issues that we don't necessarily see eye to eye on, but look, my sense is in listening to him and hearing him talk and following him in his career that he is ‑‑ he's understood like a lot of folks as we've gone through these last four or five years that were reaching a point where, you know, things that we may ‑‑ that you may have been able to go along with in the past just simply aren't viable and we need to do what Scott Walker's done, let's provide real strong principled leadership, let's get ‑‑ let's not just talk the rhetoric and understand the vision but let's have that vision actually play, you know, play itself through in the public policy that you support. I can't comment other than the fact that I think a lot of, a lot of conservatives hopefully are coming around to this and getting away from some of the things that they may have done in the past.

GLENN: There is a ‑‑ there is an article in Hemispheres magazine. I'd just like to get your, you know, your idea on this. Hemispheres asks Michelle Obama the question about, you know, saving the planet and, you know, she's really grounded in this gardening bullcrap that she's, you know, pumping out which I believe all the best gardeners come from, you know, right inner city Chicago.

SANTORUM: Inner city Chicago, yeah.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: But she's asked by how fragile the world is, et cetera, et cetera. And she says, wow, you're asking me to go deeper than I've ever gone before. Jeez. Well, I'm sure it's part about being a mother and watching my own kids grow. They're at the age where they're starting to sprout like a garden in summer. It's such a powerful thing to watch a kid change shoe sizes in just a matter of months. It reminds you that time is fleeting. Things happen. A seed turns into life. It's instantaneous in a way. But then you have to care for that life.

SANTORUM: Ooh.

GLENN: Do you have any gardening comments on that?

SANTORUM: Yeah. We have, you know, seeds that turn into life all the time in America and that unfortunately he and ‑‑ she and her husband don't recognize the dignity of that life when it germinates. But maybe I go off in a different direction there. Look, this is ‑‑ it's wonderful happy talk because it isn't have any real moral implications. The fact of the matter is that what they are ‑‑ what they are putting forward is a ‑‑ and I said this during the campaign and I got a lot of pushback on it but I called President Obama's environmental policies a radical theology. And let me just be clear ‑‑ and I didn't back away from it, and I'm not because it is a ‑‑ it is a in part a faith. It is a ‑‑ it's not a faith in a higher being. It's a faith in nature. It's a faith in sort of this radical element where, you know, nature is the object of our existence, not the other way around. God isn't ‑‑ you know, God is the creator of nature but, no, nature is a creator itself and we have to honor nature. That to me is a very, very scary view of how the world is ordered. And it allows for a lack of moral principles and implication because there's no higher being to call it to. So a lot of this radical environmentalism is rooted in something that I think we have to be very, very careful as to what we're teaching our children and I think we have to teach about creators and we have to teach about the creation, not teach about Mother Earth being something that we have to, you know, to serve.

GLENN: Rick Santorum ‑‑

PAT: And to hear more you wouldn't go to RickSantorum.com anymore. You'd go to patriotvoices.org, isn't that right?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

SANTORUM. It's dot‑com, not dot‑org.

PAT: Dot‑com. Patriotvoices.com.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that. Thank you so much.

GLENN: All right, all right, all right you two. Thank you very much.

SANTORUM: I know you don't hawk things on your show. So I really appreciate that you took the time to do this.

GLENN: Patriotvoices, is it dot‑com, dot‑org?

PAT: Dot‑com, patriotvoices.com.

GLENN: All right. Okay, Rick. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, sir. Possibly the guy that if Romney doesn't win, possibly the guy that will be the next president of what's left of the United States of America in 2016.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep