Love the cartoons! The lifeguard one was great!

How has Santorum gotten personal? He has only stated that he would rather work with people instead of firing them. Otherwise, he has defended Romney and/or not gone after him for his business practices at Bain. You might want to listen to this interview: http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-san....

I think Palin was referring to corporate crony capitalism, although I'm not sure since I didn't hear the entire interview. Now, I'm not sure whether Bain's dealings qualify as crony capitalism or not. I have a feeling she might be wrong on this one. We must not resort to the purist philosophy like libertarians do.

I've amended my post to correct the inaccuracy of the statement you quoted above. A clarification has been added to my post. My misstatement did not rightly reflect my knowledge of what infallibility means and what it applies to and what it doesn't apply to.

A heads up with a link to your article would have been nice - a basic courtesy that I expect of other bloggers.

Point taken about the misunderstanding of infallibility. I tend to rely on my husband for feedback on doctrinal issues and was depending on him to have caught that as a mistake if it was one, but it slipped right past him. However, I still tend to think that there is a lack of prudence in hastily, casually and uncritically tossing away centuries of tradition in favor of a modern sensibility merely on the basis of a lack of an infallible declaration to decide the issue (and it should be noted that the apologies of the Blessed John Paul II and our current pope, without denying them their due submission, are not infallible declarations).

CCC 2297 does not define torture (unless you can make a case that it does so in the original Latin). It condemns (non-infallibly) torture "which" fits the characteristics mentioned without defining torture in general apart from those characteristics and without condemning it (unless you and I have a different understanding of the meaning of the English word "which"). There is also a regrettable vagueness in the condemnation ("moral violence"?) which limits its usefulness.

FYI, as a Catholibertarian I support Rick Santorum also (you know, of course, that you disagree, not just with me, but with your candidate), about waterboarding)...

Sincerely, Teresa from Catholibertarian and Teresamerica

Ron Paul has already defended Iran's right to close the Straits of Hormuz. He is off his rocker and needs to retire, not run for president.

I don't think Paul's a racist but his hands off approach is what bothers me quite a bit. Plus, he's covering for the person/s who actually wrote the letters. It would be a dangerous prospect to have someone that has that much of a hands off approach as president. Plus, I don't see him as being principled when he covers for the person/s who wrote those letters.

John, wishing you and yours a blessed and Merry Christmas!

Liberals could be so dumb to think when Ron Paul says he wants to end the federal reserve he means free the Indians. Could there ignorance actually help us this election? You had me LOL! while reading your article.

What's wrong with Trump moderating a debate? It's certainly a lot better than Wolf Blitzer moderating a debate. Why don't you take Trump seriously?