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.

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.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

In the quiet aftermath of a profound loss, the Christian community mourns the unexpected passing of Dr. Voddie Baucham, a towering figure in evangelical circles. Known for his defense of biblical truth, Baucham, a pastor, author, and theologian, left a legacy on family, faith, and opposing "woke" ideologies in the church. His book Fault Lines challenged believers to prioritize Scripture over cultural trends. Glenn had Voddie on the show several times, where they discussed progressive influences in Christianity, debunked myths of “Christian nationalism,” and urged hope amid hostility.

The shock of Baucham's death has deeply affected his family. Grieving, they remain hopeful in Christ, with his wife, Bridget, now facing the task of resettling in the US without him. Their planned move from Lusaka, Zambia, was disrupted when their home sale fell through last December, resulting in temporary Airbnb accommodations, but they have since secured a new home in Cape Coral that requires renovations. To ensure Voddie's family is taken care of, a fundraiser is being held to raise $2 million, which will be invested for ongoing support, allowing Bridget to focus on her family.

We invite readers to contribute prayerfully. If you feel called to support the Bauchams in this time of need, you can click here to donate.

We grieve and pray with hope for the Bauchams.

May Voddie's example inspire us.

Overcoming loneliness: Connecting in a disconnected world

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.