Glenn interviews Rick and Karen Santorum

September 07, 2012

Writer

Former GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum and his wife Karen phoned in to radio today and talked with Glenn about the Democratic Convention and President Obama’s speech last night. Why were the Democrats so focused on talking war and not the economy?

Read the transcript of the interview below:

Rick Santorum and Karen Santorum are on the phone with us now. Karen, Rick?
VOICE: Good morning, Glenn, how are you?
GLENN: Very good. First of all, can ‑‑ how's Bella doing?
KAREN SANTORUM: Oh, she's doing great. Thank you so much for asking. And it was so nice to be with you and Tania the other night. I should have shared with you her picture. She's beautiful and healthy and we just thank God every day for her life.
GLENN: We had ‑‑ we had dinner in Dallas, what was it, two nights ago? And ‑‑
KAREN SANTORUM: Yeah, it was so fun.
GLENN: Yeah, we had dinner with this roomful of billionaires. I mean, we were the two couples that were like, we were the slugs in the room. And you guys were running for president just a few months ago. And we're sitting in this room and they're billionaires but they all were broke in the Nineties, all of them.
KAREN SANTORUM: Yeah.
GLENN: And we talked about one of them said, you know, I had to push my hill ‑‑ my car down the hill to jump, you know, to get it ‑‑
PAT: Start?
GLENN: Yeah, pop the clutch on it to get it to start?
SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I thought the best one, Glenn, was when he said he had to turn in his toll tag when he ‑‑ because he used a 50 cent toll when he went to work but he turned in his toll tag because if he hadn't used the toll tag, it was 55 cents. So to save 5 cents a trip, he turned in his tag and paid his cash.
GLENN: Now, these guys ‑‑
PAT: Wow.
GLENN: These guys ‑‑
PAT: That's amazing.
GLENN: ‑‑ said, I had to cancel my call waiting because it was $3 a month.
SANTORUM: Yeah.
GLENN: He turned in his toll tags because it saved him an extra 5 cents a day. That's how broke they were in, like, 1996. They're billionaires now. And we were talking about, look at this country. Look at what you can do. And Barack Obama and the Democrats don't believe that any of us exist. Or that any of us are putting anything of value into our society.
We've been talking today, Karen, about how the Democrats really focused on foreign affairs and war and everything else, and they think this is going to be a winning strategy for them. I think they're wrong. I think the economy's the only thing that matters. But you have, with patriotvoices.com, a new poll that you have seen. Can you tell us about the poll? It's of mothers, right?
KAREN SANTORUM: There was a recent survey of American mothers and what it revealed was that a majority of mothers believe that this country is on the wrong track and they are very concerned about national security issues. You know, President Obama's number one responsibility is to protect us and I think what this study's showing is that he has failed miserably and moms care about that. They care about security.
GLENN: Let me just show some of the polls. The top three concerns of moms in America: Unemployment, most concern, 42%; high gas and energy prices were the number two; and third choices of the moms, hay gas prices directly responsible, energy prices. The president is on record saying his policies would make energy prices necessarily skyrocket. The cost of groceries. The average grocery is up 15% in the last 18 months. But there are some other things here. 73% of mothers are concerned about the type of nuclear strategy that President Obama might pursue.
SANTORUM: Yeah, this is ‑‑ I'm sorry. Let me jump in there.
GLENN: Go ahead.
SANTORUM: That really has to do with this whole conversation with Medvedev, that he'll be more flexible on the START II treaty which gives Russia a built‑in huge advantage on tactical. It's a huge advantage, you know, 10:1 advantage over the United States. And it's now a built‑in advantage that Barack Obama negotiated and agreed to. And said that, you know, he was going to be more flexible. And I think this, I'm convinced that they brought this issue up is because, you know, that swing vote. A lot of these moms are very concerned about this issue of security and they look around the world and they see the hostility and the brewing anger and the hatred for America and our weakness, the president bowing, the president whispering that he will be flexible and they see weakness of this president and they don't want a president who's willing to sacrifice the security of our country so expend more money on entitlement programs.
GLENN: 78% of moms think the United States should increase offshore drilling. 79% of moms think government regulations need to be trimmed to incentivize people to start small businesses are expand existing ones. 53% of moms say it was inappropriate for President Obama to tell Israel that it should alter its borders. 62 of moms are concerned that President Obama said transmit this to Vladimir to President Medvedev. When informed that ObamaCare cuts Medicare funding, only 12% of moms thought that was a good idea.
This is all upside down for the president. What do you think this means in November?
KAREN SANTORUM: I think it ‑‑
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ].
GLENN: Wait, wait.
STU: Double response.
GLENN: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
STU: Communication between spouses is very important.
GLENN: We've got to talk to you about this. Are you guys even in the same city or the ‑‑ are you guys in the same area?
SANTORUM: Yeah, we are at the airport. We're just about to take off.
GLENN: All right.
SANTORUM: We're headed to Denver.
GLENN: You're not flying American Airlines, are you?
KAREN SANTORUM: We're not going to do that again, Glenn.
GLENN: Good. Thank you very much. All right. Tell me ‑‑ Karen, let's start with you. What do you think this means in November?
KAREN SANTORUM: I think it means that moms care more about just (inaudible). The overriding issue of concern for most of them was jobs. About half are concerned equally with energy and then the national debt and protecting America from the outside, from outside threats was huge. And I think that, you know, a lot of times moms ‑‑ I think it's an insult to women, too, is that we just care about abortion or the life issue. And it goes so far beyond that. It's ‑‑ I think that the moms care a lot more about a broader spectrum of issues, and I know for me personally and all the moms I've talked to, national security is a big deal. And, you know, things like, you know, the nuclear threats, electromagnetic pulse, things like that. You know, once moms are educated on that, they share their concerns.
GLENN: Rick?
SANTORUM: I would throw on top of that that, you know, the reason Obama talked about this last night, because it's a weakness for him. And America doesn't feel better about itself. You know, remember Obama's going to bring back this age, not only are the fees going to go back down but America's preeminence in the world and how people looked at America was going to go up and prestige was going to increase and he was going to get the Nobel Prize and it's just been a complete nose dive since then and that's a real problem because people do look at a president as someone who is, you know, respons ‑‑ that's the one thing the presidents are responsible for and that most Americans look to him with respect to our security.
GLENN: You know, I'm feeling really optimistic about the election but I was really optimistic about your election as well. So do you have any feelings, either of you, on where you think this is headed? How's Romney going to fare? Is Romney going to win or not?
KAREN SANTORUM: Oh, I'm praying he does. I'm concerned because of those issues that we're not talking about that we should be talking about and, you know, we're obviously hoping and praying he gets through. I think four years of Obama would be devastating to our country. And the effects, you know, may not be reversible. So we all just need to work really hard to help Romney get elected. But personally I'm concerned that I wish we had more issues to talk about.
PAT: Yeah, I notice that you guys have skipped the most important issue, Rick, and that's the issue that you started was the incredible war on women where you tried to remove contraception from all women and control their lives in every way. And I just, I find that missing here from the mom survey, too. They gotta be concerned about that, right?
SANTORUM: Oh, yeah, absolutely. There's a widespread fear that the government's going to come in and abolish birth control.
GLENN: Well, I have a bumper sticker. I have a bumper sticker on my car: Rick Santorum out of my fallopian tube.
SANTORUM: You have a bumper sticker on your car?
GLENN: Yeah, I do. I do. The real question there is, you have fallopian tubes?
SANTORUM: Yeah, I'm sort of ‑‑ I don't know.
GLENN: All right, guys. Thank you so much and have a safe flight and I'm glad to hear you're not flying American.
KAREN SANTORUM: Thank you, Glenn. Have a good day.
GLENN: Bye‑bye. Rick and Karen Santorum.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep