Last week, I had a chance encounter with an ultra-Orthodox New York City Jew. He had just survived a nightmare at the airport (“Oy!”): His Friday morning flight was delayed ‘til late afternoon, which was deeply upsetting because sundown marked the start of the Jewish Sabbath, and traveling during the Sabbath would — in his strict interpretation of Judaism — violate one of the 10 Commandments. (“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”)
Obviously, breaking one of the 10 Commandments is a VERY big deal for a true believer. Total no-no. So he refused to risk traveling on the Sabbath and rebooked his flight.
But it got me thinking: I’ve been to Orthodox synagogues before. Since relocating to Virginia, I’ve taken “Alois” to a Chabad-Lubavitch synagogue several times on the Sabbath day — and always by car. (Sorry, but I ain’t walking 10+ miles in the summer heat with a dude in his 80s.)
Well, not only is this synagogue’s parking lot filled with cars, but there’s also a police car parked outside, with blue flashing lights. (Sign o’ the times, I’m afraid.) Clearly, the Orthodox Jews who set these policies did so deliberately. They KNEW their facilities would aid and abet the violation of one of the 10 Commandments… and then they looked the other way.
It made me curious, because the philosophical implications were intriguing: Is it moral to break one of God’s 10 most important commandments to achieve the greater good?
Because you don’t have to be a genius to figure out why Alois’ Orthodox synagogue lets people park there: Virginia isn’t New York City. Most congregants don’t live within walking distance. Police must (visibly) park outside because terrorism, sadly, is now a legitimate threat. If they closed the parking lot on the Sabbath, fewer people would attend — and thus, they’d miss the positives of attending religious services (prayer, community, spiritual fulfilment, personal growth, etc.).
Which means, at some point, it was decided that the benefits of breaking one of the 10 Commandments outweighed the costs.
That’s a fascinating concept, because it seems to imply a measuring test: If one sin leads to more than one good deed, then perhaps committing the sin wasn’t just morally permissible — it would actually be immoral to do the opposite. Right? Not sinning would lead to a sadder, less holy world.
Which means, in this context, it would actually be immoral to follow the 10 Commandments!
But how the heck does this “measuring test” work? Does one good deed — and then one bad deed — cancel the other out? (Is it like combining a negative and a positive?) Or do you need at least two good deeds to cancel one bad deed? Or is it three, four, or five? Ten or eleven?
Or more?
Because, by definition, all measuring tests must have a tipping point. Eventually, the scales are gonna move.
So what’s the tipping point for sin?
When it was time to take Alois back to his assisted-living home, I asked one of the Jews who helped run the temple about it. Alas, his answer was unsatisfying.
He tried to pass it off as an individual choice thing, saying that how Jews attend services isn’t his business — but his response overlooked the synagogue’s mens rea in deliberately utilizing its property to facilitate sin. He’s not an innocent bystander; keeping the parking lot open, clean, and well maintained on the Sabbath day — as well as requesting a police presence (via police car, of course) — was intentional, purposeful, and premeditated. There’s no way around it.
But if it’s moral to break one of the 10 Commandments… then what’s off limits?
Being a moral absolutist is easy because the bright lines are always clear. The law does the thinking for you. The same goes for political absolutism.
But our real world is murky. Contradictory, too. Like it or not, pragmatism matters. And sometimes in politics, we must take one step backward to take two steps forward.
Sometimes, it’s our best option available.
Some things were perfectly clear
Seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear
I claimed the corner on truth
These days, it's harder to say
I know what I'm fighting for
My faith is falling away
I'm not that sure anymore—Billy Joel, Shades of Grey
A moral law, morally applied, should never lead to an immoral outcome. Yet there are so many immoral laws in society — including Massachusetts’ recent decision to legalize abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy.
I’m sure the leftists who backed it believe they’re doing the right thing. They’re using a measuring test of their own — balancing the rights of the unborn against the rights of the mother.
And that’s the dark side of compromising with evil: One man’s “greater good” is another man’s abomination. Because, once you remove the moral scaffolding, everything’s negotiable; every decision is subject to a sliding scale of pros and cons.
Now with the wisdom of years
I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear
Are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men
And all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore—Billy Joel, Shades of Grey
The trick, I think, is to recognize when pragmatism and morality are in conflict. Understand why you’re compromising, when you’re doing it — and what you hope to gain.
But you can’t stop there. You also need a measuring test to determine if the tradeoff was worth it. And that requires a scale.
Flying blind is moral suicide.
This is the real world: outcomes matter. Sometimes, they’re the only thing that matters.
Politicians who are indifferent to outcomes won’t stay in office very long. Their impact is minimal.
And you can’t change the world if you don’t stay in office.
Anyway, those are my free-floating thoughts about Jews, parking lots, the 10 Commandments, and morality. Talk amongst yourselves.
Y’gotta admit, the philosophical implications are intriguing.
PRediction: The 2028 Republican primary will be all about values, morals, and when to compromise. And the underlying question that’ll tie it all together is, “What does ‘America First’ mean?”
And that’s largely because JD Vance is the frontrunner.
By feeding breadcrumbs to the isolationist wing — while lobbing grenades at the so-called “neocons” — Vance has pushed this debate on the GOP. What’s fascinating is that Vance wasn’t forced into it.
It wasn’t politically demanded; it was entirely his choice. And because he made this choice, an unknown percent of the “America First” coalition is leery of his candidacy.
They view him as a controversial, divisive figure.
Which is a stunning development for a 42-year-old political newcomer who was riding a wave of MAGA goodwill. Antagonizing so many supporters in such a short time is exceedingly rare.
Think about it this way: Vice President Mike Pence wasn’t a controversial figure in the MAGAverse before the 2018 midterms, yet Vice President Vance already is!
Alas, it’ll make it much harder for Vance to reunite the movement in 2028.
Yet what’s the alternative? I know lots of readers are hoping Marco Rubio will run in 2028. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t.
But SOMEONE other than Vance will.
It happened to Vice President George H.W. Bush in ’88. Despite President Ronald Reagan’s sky-high GOP popularity — and despite Bush being President Reagan’s two-term veep — Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Pat Robertson, Pete du Pont, Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Laxalt, and others tossed their hats in the ring. It was a competitive race, with Bush finishing third in Iowa before rebounding.
Same will happen in 2028: There’ll be seven to 10 serious Republican presidential challengers.
And if Vance struggles out of the gate, the debate over what “America First” means will be deafening.
PRojection: Free market capitalism will emerge as the deciding GOP issue in 2028. If Vance wins the debate, he’ll win the nomination — and if he doesn’t, he won’t.
I’ve written about the economic ignorance of the American people before:
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have been on an impressive winning streak. From New York City to Los Angeles, it’s the biggest story in politics since you-know-who descended from a golden escalator in 2015. But every now and then, the DSA hits a roadblock.
And when they do, have you noticed that it’s almost NEVER because of economic pushback?
As a lover of free markets and capitalism, I wish it wasn’t so. I wish defending free markets was a winning issue for the GOP — and a galvanizing message for the electorate.
I wish the American people were economically literate.
But they’re not. (And they won’t be ‘til we invest in an educational campaign.) Unfortunately, calling a socialist a socialist doesn’t move the needle anymore.
‘Cause if it did, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Passionately defending free markets isn’t a winning issue in the general election, but I suspect it’ll be of the utmost importance in the GOP primary. That’s because the DSA will have further cannibalized the Democratic Party, making the “socialism versus free markets” debate inevitable.
And besides, there’s an awful lot of people in the Republican Party desperate to have this debate.
That’s the truly ironic thing: JD Vance’s greatest strength is that he’s a whip-smart debater. Had he kept his cards closer to his vest, the MAGAverse would be giddy with anticipation — and ready to unleash Vance on the DSA nitwits!
But because of his public statements, instead of anticipation, there’s unease: We’re not entirely sure Vance is on our side.
JD Vance wants to end the US dollar's position as a global reserve currency, because he thinks it allows Americans to consume too much and do so too cheaply.
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) August 14, 2026
Keep that in mind the next time you order a $20 burrito on door dash. pic.twitter.com/hrG56Pz8sw
And his argument against socialism leaves something to be desired:
Ingraham: People can't afford a home. There's concern about the cost of living. $100 to fill my tank today. What does the administration need to do on that front? There's real strains out there.
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 5, 2026
Vance: I think what it shows is that the past 40 years of bipartisan economic policy… pic.twitter.com/IGbZXVP8l9
…I think a lot of people look at El-Sayed or a lot of these other radical candidates, and they say, ‘Socialism’s evil.’ They’re right. Socialism is evil. But we have to ask ourselves the question, ‘Why is socialism so appealing to a lot of people?’ Who, to your point, have lower access, who don’t have the same ownership, who went to universities and were sold a bill of goods. They have a lot of debt, but they didn’t necessarily get the good job that came along with that high debt-load. And I think our answer to that… is number one, protect American manufacturing. The manufacturing economy is the foundation of the middle class. We see this in Europe, we saw it in the United States: Every country that sells its industrial base to the highest foreign bidder loses its middle class and sees socialism come on the backend. What I think is actually gonna happen is these socialist candidates, they’ve caught the tail end of an economy that wasn’t working for most Americans.
I get what he’s saying. I understand why he’s saying it. And I even agree that a vibrant, growing manufacturing base would be a net-positive for the American people.
But if you’re a conservative Republican who believes free markets are a moral imperative and a God-given right, that’s not the kind of argument you’ll find very appealing.
Pragmatism appeals to the brain; morality appeals to the soul. And in a political arena, moral arguments are far more persuasive than pragmatic arguments.
Especially in ideologically driven presidential primaries.
That’s exactly the kind of question where Vance could get outflanked, outworked, and outgunned by a conservative rival. Come 2028, if the GOP views the DSA as an existential threat, we’re gonna demand a candidate who’ll fight, defeat, and discredit ‘em — not one who’s sympathetic to their anti-American grievances.
And besides, with Tucker Carlson moving more and more to the economic left, the “guilt by association” card will loom larger and larger. (Especially if Vance stubbornly refuses to separate his brand from Carlson’s.)
Blowback is inevitable. Get ready for it.
PRaise: Let’s give a round of applause to Karoline Leavitt. She’ll be leaving her position as White House press secretary at the end of the month.
She was only there for 20 months, yet left an indelible impression.
Leavitt’s legacy is transforming the press room into must-see TV. She singlehandedly elevated her office’s status and profile, turning what was once an unglamorous assignment into one of the White House’s most attractive, star-making positions.
In my opinion, she’s the GOAT. Her style wouldn’t work in the 1980s or 1990s, but in Trump’s White House — and with this rabidly-antagonistic media — it’s a match made in heaven. She’s the right woman at the right time.
At least, she was. Now, she’s about to ride off into the sunset.
But the world hasn’t heard the last of Karoline Leavitt. She’s generationally talented; one way or another, she’ll return to politics, media, or a combination thereof. The siren’s call is too great.
And until she does, lesser talents should be nervous:
The Five host worries Karoline Leavitt will 'work at Fox News' after resignation - The Mirror US https://t.co/YoBd8eFFBN
— Graham Slack (@friartuck4447) August 15, 2026
Congratulations, Karoline. Enjoy your time with your kiddies. Recharge your batteries. Take a well-deserved breather. Lounge around in your bathrobe and take things slow for a while.
And whenever you’re ready, the door’s wide open. You kiddin’ me?
She’ll be an asset wherever she goes.
PRedator: I wrote about the DSA and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed quite a lot last week. On Thursday, I proposed 10 questions for him — inspired by the revelation that El-Sayed claimed he has an “obligation” to follow Sharia law until his dying day.
Those 10 questions were:
- Do you believe that American Muslims who convert to another faith should be executed — or in any way punished?
- Should it be illegal to publish a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in the U.S.?
- Did the staff at Charlie Hebdo deserve what happened to them? (Credit to Stephen L. Miller and Sam Rosenthal.)
- When Sharia law and the Supreme Court are in conflict, whose authority takes precedence in your duty as a U.S. Senator?
- Do you acknowledge that foreign Islamic rulings (fatwas) have zero legal standing in the United States?
- Should non-Muslims be allowed to testify in court against Muslims?
- Do you support Americans’ First Amendment right to say controversial, blasphemous, and even offensive things about ALL religions, including Islam?
- Do you agree that Islamic scholars and tribunals have no legal authority to overturn, ignore, or delay a U.S. court decision?
- Do you believe Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Qatar must allow Christians and Jews to worship freely and openly, which includes the right to build churches and synagogues?
- You have two daughters. If they refuse to wear a hijab when they get older — or decide to date non-Muslims — how would you react?
Some of those questions were biting; others were so-so. Either way, I think we can do better.
Early next week, I’m gonna update the list. (Spoiler alert!)
For example, aren’t you kinda curious about El-Sayed’s opinion on child marriage? After all, according to Islamic tradition, the Prophet Mohammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old.
Does El-Sayed believe that was moral? Or would he support banning child marriage in the United States?
At a minimum, don’tcha think someone should ask?
I’ve got a few other angles I’m working on, but would love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Let me know what other questions ought to be posed to El-Sayed… and if they’re good, I’ll steal ‘em. (And how!)
From 10 Commandments to 10 questions. ‘Tis the circle of life, young Simba. Perfect symmetry.
Happy Sunday! Stay moral!
