Life in Washington, DC seems remarkably calm as we head into the fall and the days get shorter and shorter. It’s calm here at least compared that is to Paris where the far Left continues to protest against … against what? I don’t know exactly. The West? Against civilisation itself? Given the number of Palestinian flags visible at these protests that seems like a good bet.

While life carries on calmly in Washington, there are some troubling foreign policy developments, some of which we discussed in the latest Talking Sense episode. There are some fans of Donald Trump who continue to claim that he is playing some sort of 4-D or 5-D chess when it comes to dealing with our global foes. There’s always a chance that that’s true, but I think it’s far more likely that Mr Trump, bereft of the sensible and stable advisors he had in his first term, is stumbling around in the dark, making up his policies on the fly. There are, of course, good and bright elements to Trump’s foreign policy, such as his steadfast support for Israel. But the way in which Mr Trump has alienated other allies and seems to be drawing the United States (US) closer to Russia is concerning, to say the least.

When it comes to Russia, Mr Trump and his envoys seem to be doing anything and everything to suck up to Mr Putin, from buying Russian diesel to praising him, as Trump envoy Steve Witkoff did, as a “humanitarian.” The Russian diesel will make absolutely no difference to US markets or diesel prices, but the revenues will be used to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians. And calling Mr Putin a humanitarian for releasing an American prisoner who was unjustly imprisoned in the first place is sickening. If Mr Putin a humanitarian, Charles Manson is a good family man. Anyway, I don’t mean to rehash these arguments, other than to say that I believe Trump’s latest Russian gambit isn’t only a strategic mistake, but a moral disgrace and sullies this nation.

On to some of the stories that have capturing the headlines this week, which include two of our leading anti-Western politicians, Ilhan Omar and Abdul El Sayed; Brad Lander, a Congressional hopeful beclowning himself in Israel; the departure of a key advisor on health policy; and an instructive new study warning Californians against wealth taxes. Let’s get to it.

Is she even Ilhan Omar?

Last week I wrote about the legal troubles that Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is facing after federal authorities raided her house in Washington, DC. We aren’t clear what the charges are, but legal pundits, such as former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, believe she’s in “deep trouble.”

Mr Trump called her a “sick and very dishonest person who hates this country.” That seems accurate, but former President Obama decided to weigh in on this case, and came to her defence claiming that she was being unfairly targeted by the Trump Administration. That’s a curious position for Mr. Obama to take given that he, like the rest of us, has no idea what evidence the federal authorities have against Omar.

Not only do we not have full knowledge of the charges against Omar, we also don’t even know who Omar is. It turns out that her name isn’t Ilhan Omar after all, but Ilhan Nur Said Elmi; she has the same surname as the man she married and whom, it is speculated, was her brother.

Omar has, until recently, been quiet since this scandal broke, but this week she released a fundraising video, filmed from her car, pleading for money to help fight the charges. She also went on MSNOW, interviewed by Chris Hayes, who at one point enquired about the allegations that she married her own brother to get him US residency. Hayes asked Omar where these allegations even came from and she answered that they were raised on a Somali blog that no longer exists. Hayes then asked:

“But you’re not related to him at all?”

Omar responded: “Not to my knowledge.”

I don’t know about you dear reader, but if I had decided to marry one of my siblings or even a relation, I think I would have some knowledge of that. Marriage is a state not entered into lightly and family ties, particularly in the Somali community, are profound. All of this is fishier than a Marseille bouillabaisse.

Meanwhile another of this country’s prominent Muslim politicians, Michigan’s Abdul El Sayed had another debate with his Republican opponent in his Senate run, Mike Rogers. This debate was less aggressive than their previous encounters, but Mr El Sayed has done himself few favours after he equated Israel and Iran as equal threats to the US and as the allegations of his and his family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, persist.

The race in Michigan remains close, but increasing numbers of dyed-in-the-wool Democrats are coming out against El Sayed and are being urged to leave the boxes for both candidates blank. If El Sayed wins, he will be the most prominently anti-Israel and virulently antisemitic politician ever to win a Senate seat. That he may have access to classified national security information is chilling. Let’s hope Michiganders see some sense between now and election day.

Brad Lander, olive picker extraordinaire

And speaking of people who we should worry about holding elected office, Brad Lander made a trip to Israel and made a bit of a fool of himself. There is no reason anyone outside the US or even outside New York City should know about Brad Lander, but he has managed to thrust himself into the headlines.

Lander is a far-left progressive Jewish Democrat and the former comptroller of New York City who beat incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman in this year’s primary race. Lander ran to the left of Goldman, particularly when it comes to Israel. He describes himself as a “liberal Zionist,” but his is a funny sort of Zionism that seeks to cut Israel off from any US military aid. So, it’s a Zionism that seems to want to usher in the end of Israel.

When I think of Lander I’m reminded of the Simpsons character, Krusty the Clown, whose full name is Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofsky. In one memorable episode Krusty gets a DNA test and finds out, much to his surprise, that he’s not Jewish. He remarks:

“All these years I thought I was a self-loathing Jew … and now I find out I’m just an ordinary antisemite.”

Perhaps someone should give Lander test to check whether he isn’t also just an ordinary antisemite. He certainly likes to hang around other “self-loathing Jews” to say nothing of clinging to notable antisemites, like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

This week, presumably as part of his election campaign he decided to travel to Israel and then to the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, to pick olives for Palestinian farmers in an area south of Bethlehem. As the media has reported very widely, there have been attacks by young Jewish Israeli hooligans against Palestinians in this area. Lander and his group, organised by Rabbis for Human Rights, wanted to show solidarity and support for the Palestinians, which is, of course, fine.

At some point the group was detained by the Israel Defense Forces IDF), which claimed they had been operating in a secure zone that required military coordination. That fact is disputed, however and some media outlets make the point that no such coordination is required. I don’t have the facts so won’t comment further. Lander, however, used the episode, where he seemed to be held on an air-conditioned bus with food, water, and access to his cellphone with which to post selfies, to portray himself as being on something like the Bataan Death March.

Meanwhile, about the same time Lander was posting his selfies, an Israeli politician, Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem and a candidate for the Amcha Israel party, had her car stoned while visiting a West Bank community. It is only by sheer luck that no one in Hassan-Nahoum’s car was seriously injured or killed.

The Lander episode is a bit silly and the IDF probably should have let them be to help the Palestinian farmers. But the frustrating thing is that it diverts attention away from the real dangers on the West Bank. There are between 200 and 300 young thugs perpetrating attacks against Palestinians and there have been perhaps 70 violent attacks last year. There are about 460 000 Israelis living in this area, so the number of thugs carrying out these attacks is a fraction of one percent of the population. That is not to say that the Israeli government shouldn’t take these attacks seriously and do more to arrest and prosecute those guilty, but let’s get things in perspective.

According to British commentator, Jake Wallis Simons, in 2024 there were 46 Israelis killed in violent attacks in areas outside Gaza. Most of those attackers would have come from the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to pay monetary rewards to anyone who attacks Jews. Much of the budget for the PA comes from Western donor countries, so our tax dollars are being used to subsidise terror.

Lander seems to have a problem distinguishing right from wrong, but in case he’s reading this, here’s what you need to know about the difference between Israel and the PA: In Israel if you commit murder or attack someone because of their race, religion, or for political reasons, you will be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, put in prison. You will also be an embarrassment and source of great shame to the country. In the PA areas, if you commit murder or attack someone because of their race, religion, or for political reasons, you and your family will be given money. You might have a street or a school named after you and you will be feted as a hero.

And that is the difference that Lander seems not to see. One country values life and the rule of law and one country values death and chaos. And as I was writing this news came in that two Palestinians killed two Israeli soldiers near the West Bank city of Hebron. I don’t know what happened to the Palestinians, but I’m sure their families are busy checking their bank accounts for a fat deposit.

Calley Means Calls it a Day

Anyone who visits the US will notice almost immediately that Americans are not a small people. This is a country of extremes, with some of the fittest and most athletic people you could ever hope to find, along with some of the most enormously overweight you could ever imagine. Walk around an American city or visit an airport and you’ll see that the overweight far outnumber the fit. When I visit my local Walmart, there are always several people moving about on electric mobility scooters. Sometimes they are using them because they are elderly, but almost every time I see someone on them, it’s because they are fat … and not just fat, but gargantuan. And often I see them loading up their baskets with donuts and fried chicken.

Americans are not healthy, with more than 40% classified as obese and nearly 10% classified as severely obese.Part of the problem is that, thanks to trade and the free market, food is plentiful, cheap, and portions tend to be very large. But a more fundamental problem is that in the 1960s the government decided to produce the “food pyramid” that encouraged Americans to eat lots of carbohydrates and very little meat, eggs, fish, and fat. The pyramid is, of course, upside down. We really should have been doing the opposite.

Credit the Trump Administration for addressing this issue and for releasing a new food pyramid that encourages people to eat more protein and healthy fats and fewer carbs. The Eat Real Food campaign also encourages people to consume less processed food. All of this seems quite sensible, but one of the architects of this policy, Calley Means, who was brought on by Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just announced his departure from HHS.

It isn’t clear right now just why Means is departing, but apparently, he’s frustrated with delays in the Trump Administration to implementing his full agenda. Now here is where I may be relieved that Means is departing, because while his nutritional advice may be sound, I fear he may have an authoritarian streak and may seek to impose his “good food” agenda on an unwilling public.

There is a MAGA and a Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) element that see both pharmaceutical companies and food companies as nefarious actors, keeping Americans fat and sick. I think this is an unfair lens with which to view the world. Food companies make profits not by making people fat, but by making food delicious. The donuts and fried chicken I see in people’s carts are there because they taste damn good. And pharmaceutical companies make money by curing diseases and making people healthy. We enjoy, after all, the longest life expectancy in human history.

I encourage the MAHA crowd to educate us all about better ways to eat and healthier choices, but those are choices that individuals still must make for themselves. People have agency and we must allow them to put whatever they want in their mouths, as long as they are aware of harms or benefits and as long as they bear the consequences of their choices. Anyone classified as disabled and on welfare just because of their lifestyle choices, like eating donuts all day, should be immediately reassessed and told to eat better, exercise, and get a job. But if they choose obesity, they should bear the costs.

The Californian Laffer Curve in Action

And finally, on a recent Talking Sense episode, Frans Cronje discussed taxation and the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve, which charts taxation rates on the X axis and government revenue on the Y axis. The great economist Arthur Laffer showed that at zero percent taxes the government raises zero revenue but as taxes increase, revenues rise. There is a peak, however, beyond which revenues start to fall because the higher taxes discourage work and investment and encourage tax avoidance. At 100% taxation, the government also raises zero revenue because there is no incentive for anyone to work and thereby pay taxes.

California is heading down the wrong side of the Laffer curve, with increasing numbers of wealthy people leaving and moving to lower tax states. In the upcoming election, Californian voters will vote on a ballot measure that may approve a wealth tax, to be levied on the dwindling number of the state’s billionaires. Californian voters need to vote very carefully in a couple of weeks.

A new study by Josh Rauh and others at the Hoover Institution shows how self-defeating this wealth tax would be. The proposal would impose a one-time 5% tax on the worldwide net worth of individuals worth more than $1 billion. There are all sorts of problems associated with how the government would measure the wealth, particularly when many individuals hold shares in private companies that are not actively traded. But leave that aside, the advocates of the tax don’t account for the changing behaviour of the billionaires. Already billionaires are leaving California and so the state will raise far less than it projects. Furthermore, the pro-tax advocates don’t consider the fact that as those billionaires flee the wealth tax, they take with them the ordinary income taxes they pay annually, which can reach as high as $5.8 billion annually. Rauh and his colleagues calculate, therefore, that the wealth tax would yield a net present value of negative $38.9 billion.

There is something very peculiar I have noticed about those who advocate higher taxes. Most people acknowledge sin taxes, such as high taxes on tobacco and alcohol, will change people’s behaviour so they will be less likely to smoke and drink. Sin taxes can therefore not only raise revenue but also have the added benefit of encouraging healthy behaviour. But those same people will be loath to admit that if you impose high income taxes people will similarly change their behaviour and will either work less, invest less, move, or find ways to avoid taxation.

So, California, make the right choice please and drag yourselves back up the Laffer Curve. And while they’re at it … South Africa could do with lower taxes too!

With that, I’ll wish you all a happy and peaceful weekend.