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.

Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These 5 governors are refusing to send national guard troops to the border

CAITLIN O'HARA/AFP/Getty Images

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

Rachel Maddow chokes up and cries on air as she struggles to deliver news that migrant babies and toddlers have been sent to "tender age" shelters pic.twitter.com/O6crm8cvyR
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) June 20, 2018

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Obama's tribute center in Chicago will cost taxpayers $200 million

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

Glenn's Show Prep