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

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.

 

 

Remembering Charlie Kirk: A tribute through song

MELISSA MAJCHRZAK / Contributor | Getty Images

On September 17th, Glenn commemorated his late friend Charlie Kirk by hosting The Charlie Kirk Show Podcast, where he celebrated and remembered the life of a remarkable young man.

During the broadcast, Glenn shared an emotional new song performed by his daughter, Cheyenne, who was standing only feet away from Charlie when he was assassinated. The song, titled "We Are One," has been dedicated to Charlie Kirk as a tribute and was written and co-performed by David Osmond, son of Alan Osmond, founding member of The Osmonds.

Glenn first asked David Osmond to write "We Are One" in 2018, as he predicted that dark days were on the horizon, but he never imagined that it would be sung by his daughter in honor of Charlie Kirk. The Lord works in mysterious ways; could there have been a more fitting song to honor such a brave man?

"We Are One" is available for download or listening on Spotify HERE


Has free speech been twisted into a defense of violence?

CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / Contributor | Getty Images

Celebrating murder is not speech. It is a revelation of the heart. America must distinguish between debate and the glorification of evil.

Over the weekend, the world mourned the murder of Charlie Kirk. In London, crowds filled the streets, chanting “Charlie! Charlie! Charlie!” and holding up pictures of the fallen conservative giant. Protests in his honor spread as far away as South Korea. This wasn’t just admiration for one man; it was a global acknowledgment that courage and conviction — the kind embodied by Kirk during his lifetime — still matter. But it was also a warning. This is a test for our society, our morality, and our willingness to defend truth.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recently delivered a speech that struck at the heart of this crisis. She praised Kirk as a man who welcomed debate, who smiled while defending his ideas, and who faced opposition with respect. That courage is frightening to those who have no arguments. When reason fails, the weapons left are insults, criminalization, and sometimes violence. We see it again today, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Charlie Kirk’s life was a challenge. His death is a call.

Some professors and public intellectuals have written things that should chill every American soul. They argue that shooting a right-wing figure is somehow less serious than murdering others. They suggest it could be mitigated because of political disagreement. These aren’t careless words — they are a rationalization for murder.

Some will argue that holding such figures accountable is “cancel culture.” They will say that we are silencing debate. They are wrong. Accountability is not cancel culture. A critical difference lies between debating ideas and celebrating death. Debate challenges minds. Celebrating murder abandons humanity. Charlie Kirk’s death draws that line sharply.

History offers us lessons. In France, mobs cheered executions as the guillotine claimed the heads of their enemies — and their own heads soon rolled. Cicero begged his countrymen to reason, yet the mob chose blood over law, and liberty was lost. Charlie Kirk’s assassination reminds us that violence ensues when virtue is abandoned.

We must also distinguish between debates over policy and attacks on life itself. A teacher who argues that children should not undergo gender-transition procedures before adulthood participates in a policy debate. A person who says Charlie Kirk’s death is a victory rejoices in violence. That person has no place shaping minds or guiding children.

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

For liberty and virtue

Liberty without virtue is national suicide. The Constitution protects speech — even dangerous ideas — but it cannot shield those who glorify murder. Society has the right to demand virtue from its leaders, educators, and public figures. Charlie Kirk’s life was a challenge. His death is a call. It is a call to defend our children, our communities, and the principles that make America free.

Cancel culture silences debate. But accountability preserves it. A society that distinguishes between debating ideas and celebrating death still has a moral compass. It still has hope. It still has us.

Are Gen Z's socialist sympathies a threat to America's future?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

In a republic forged on the anvil of liberty and self-reliance, where generations have fought to preserve free markets against the siren song of tyranny, Gen Z's alarming embrace of socialism amid housing crises and economic despair has sparked urgent alarm. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough questions: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from—and what does it mean for America's future? Glenn asked, and you answered—hundreds weighed in on this volatile mix of youthful frustration and ideological peril.

The results paint a stark picture of distrust in the system. A whopping 79% of you affirm that Gen Z's socialist sympathies stem from real economic gripes, like sky-high housing costs and a rigged game tilted toward the elite and corporations—defying the argument that it's just youthful naivety. Even more telling, 97% believe this trend arises from a glaring educational void on socialism's bloody historical track record, where failed regimes have crushed freedoms under the boot of big government. And 97% see these poll findings as a harbinger of deepening generational rifts, potentially fueling political chaos and authoritarian overreach if left unchecked.

Your verdict underscores a moral imperative: America's soul hangs on reclaiming timeless values like self-reliance and liberty. This feedback amplifies your concerns, sending a clear message to the powers that be.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Without civic action, America faces collapse

JEFF KOWALSKY / Contributor | Getty Images

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.

Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.

Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.

Taking up the torch

The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.

Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.

Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.

We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.

Start small and local

In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.

How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.

Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.

Samuel Corum / Stringer | Getty Images

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.

Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.