Rick Santorum voices opposition to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

December 03, 2012

Writer

Today on radio, Glenn spent a good portion of his opening monologue on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. He invited former Senator Rick Santorum on to the show to discuss the issue as well. Santorum strongly opposes the treaty as it takes away a lot of the decision-making ability from the parents and hands it over to the federal government and the UN. Santorum, the parent of a special needs child, gave insight into both his personal feelings about the treaty and the impact it would have on families and United States sovereignty.

PatriotVoices.com, run by Rick Santorum, explained on their website:

The U.S. Senate has scheduled a vote on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) for Tuesday, December 4.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) would give the U.N. oversight of the healthcare and education choices parents with special needs kids make. It is outrageous that the government could tell you and me what is best for our children, particularly when they’ve never met the child.
If this were to pass, CRPD would become the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, and would trump state laws, and could be used as precedent by state and federal judges. This treaty would give the government, acting under U.N. instructions, the ability to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. It also would give the U.N. discretion over decisions about how we educate our special needs kids, and could potentially eliminate parental rights for the education of children with disabilities

Below is rough transcript of the interview:

We have Rick Santorum who runs Patriotvoices.com. And he's quite concerned about the UN's convention on the rights of the persons with disabilities, and it may pass the Senate tomorrow. Hello Rick.

SANTORUM: Great to hear your voice.

GLENN: This agenda from the UN has already passed the Senate committee and it looks like it's going to pass the full Senate for ratification.

SANTORUM: Right now we're holding on to the hope that 36 senators will not sign any treaties in the lame duck session. Two years ago the star treaty, and that being passed in a lame duck session. I think there was sufficient blow back from conservative groups and Republicans generally that enough Republicans have signed the letters. If they stick to it to keep them short of the 67 votes they need. They need obviously they have three more than they need. 33 votes. But they have 36 signatures. The greater concern a lot of those 36 some of them have suggested they might vote for this thing after the first of the year. That would be devastating. This treaty -- this is the most important point. Karen and I have this disabled little girl. Or Senate ratification would help anybody around the world I would be for this. But it doesn't. No benefits. No person with disability here in the United States having the Senate ratify this treaty. But -- the our the reason our ratifying the treaty doesn't improve anybody else's life any place else. Ratifying this treaty will not change disability laws in this country which meet or exceed the standards in the UN treaty. Will not improve their ability to go overseas and get better access to restaurants or curb cuts on the sidewalks. Because America passing a law doesn't impact Germany or Honduras or South Africa. This Kinard they're putting forth on the American public somehow if the United States acts people overseas will have better disability rights.

SANTORUM: Article 18, section 2. Break this down, and tell me what all this means. There's several things that are disturbing the children with disabilities shall be registered immediately afterbirth. That sounds really Orwellian or fascistIC.

SANTORUM: You're pretty much labeled right out of the gate. The idea that somehow or another the government is going to have a record of everybody that's disabled. Why? Why do we need that? These are things that historically in America people with disabilities have been rights protected by their mom and dad who go out and articulate those rights. And then we have laws that apply to disabilities. Now only with this section, but in section 7 the best interest of the child standards. Now the government is going to be in a position according to the UN treaty the government is going to decide what is in the best of your child as opposed to disability laws in this country no, it is the parent's prerogative to determine what is in the best interest of their child. They are only removed from the prerogative if they're proven incapable of protecting their child's interest. Now the presumption the state knows better than that. This turns the disability law with respect to children on its head. There's a section 4 which talks about rights that the government owes sit citizens in this United States. This now turns it on the head which is the positive rights you've talked about it many, many times on your program where the Marxist, progressives, that's the strain they want to have the government in a position where they are extending rights and that the government therefore by giving you rights has obviously a lot more operational control of your lifes'.

GLENN: One thing I've been worried. Devaluing life. That does this. It also tracks everybody. It also I think sets you up -- you have the right to know and be cared for your parents. I think that's a push for abortion quite honestly. Because if you're going to be held responsible years later that will discourage adoption, and encourage abortion I think. One thing I'm really concerned about is education. And home schooling. Does this affect at all how we will -- will this affect home schooling.

SANTORUM: You talked to the folks who're the experts at home schooling. They've been the opponents of this bill. There are provisions that have been in previous UN conventions that expressly carve out the right of parents to have the ability to decide what's best to educate their children. Those are missing from this when it comes to the disabled children. Combine that the fact that there's no language protecting the parent's rights, combine that with section seven which says that the state is going to determine what's in the best interest of your child it's pretty clear that the Americans -- that the individuals with disability act parents will lose. Not the right with disabled children but arguably you can make the broader application.

GLENN: This is not the state as the federal government. This is the United Nations. We're signing on a new United Nations treaty. We're taking more sovereignty from the United States.

SANTORUM: The United States will have to make their case we are in fact complying. Jon Kerry and John McCain are saying this will have no impact. We don't have to do anything with America because we already comply. But what we're now going to be forced to do section 4 one of the subsections says it is the obligation of any state or state being in this case the federal government that adopts this treaty to pass laws and regulations that comply, and there will be a board that we're complying with this treaty, and the answer -- what these the proponents we won't have to do that. We have to ignore that. If they're going to ignore that why pass it. What been right for us to do it.

GLENN: Why would you leave a section in there that where you in the homeland defense bill, the NDAA where you can scoop up people and hold them without trial. You can take them without warrant. You don't have to charge them. The President says we'll never do it.

SANTORUM: Just because it's there doesn't mean we're going to do it. And of course we are continually cited in the country by the United Nations for egregious of not treating our people that the dignity that the UN would like to see. Not pervasive abortions which we would like to. Call your Senator. Call your calling other senators from other states frankly most senators don't pay attention to that. You've got to call your senators, and ask them to oppose the CRPD and it will undermine our sovereignty, and put the United States in a very precarious position, and not just on disability but broader than. . We will get those petitions to members of Congress.

GLENN: Patriotvoices.com. Rick, thanks.

SANTORUM: Thanks.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep