Americans are discussing the possibility of a universal basic income (UBI) more seriously than ever before, largely due to the surprisingly popular campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Yang has made UBI the central issue of his platform, promising a "Freedom Dividend" paid for by a Value Added Tax on businesses which would give every American over the age of 18 an unconditional $1,000 a month to help offset the looming crisis of automation replacing US jobs.

"In the next 12 years, 1 out of 3 American workers are at risk of losing their jobs to new technologies — and unlike with previous waves of automation, this time new jobs will not appear quickly enough in large enough numbers to make up for it," Yang's campaign site argues. "To avoid an unprecedented crisis, we're going to have to find a new solution, unlike anything we've done before. It all begins with the Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income for all American adults, no strings attached — a foundation on which a stable, prosperous, and just society can be built."

Yang is absolutely correct that automation is going to be replacing the jobs of many people in the very near future, and he is absolutely correct that new solutions unlike anything ever tried before are going to be necessary to help address this problem. But his plan, and indeed all the most publicized plans which involve the implementation of a universal basic income, will necessarily lead to an oppressive oligarchic dystopia unlike anything we've ever seen before.

Russia's Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky had phone talks after the landmark prisoner swap between the two countries, discussing the civil conflict in eastern Ukraine and measures to settle it, the Kremlin said.

The two presidents stressed the humanitarian aspect of the swap that affected 35 people from each side during the phone conversation late Saturday night.

They both agreed that the swap is an important step to mending ties between the two countries, the Kremlin press service said. Putin and Zelensky also discussed the prospects of solving the crisis inside Ukraine and putting the lengthy conflict between Kiev and the breakaway Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk to an end.

As we advanced past the first hour of a historic interview - see here and here - at a Federal Police building in Curitiba, southern Brazil, where Lula has been incarcerated for over 500 days as part of the lawfare endgame in a complex coup, former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was on a roll.

"Let me tell you about Iran."

He felt relaxed enough to start telling stories of political negotiation at the highest level. He had already set the context. Nuggets abounded - especially focusing on the sometimes rocky relationship between Brasilia and Washington. Here are only three examples:

1) On the overall relationship with the US: "People think that I'm angry at the Americans. On the contrary, we had a very healthy political relationship with the US, and that should be the case for Brazil. But to be subservient, never."

Fights with Hillary

US President Donald Trump's administration decided to hold off on the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan after Israel found itself facing new elections, slated for 17 September, with the resignation of Trump's adviser on the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, casting doubt on the fate of the US-led initiative.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has dismissed all speculations of a substantial delay in the announcement of the much-anticipated Israeli-Palestinian peace plan on Friday, saying the United States would present it within weeks. Pompeo's response to a question at Kansas State University, according to AFP:

"We've been consulting broadly throughout the region for two and a half years now and I think in the coming weeks we'll announce our vision. And hopefully the world... will see that as a building block, a basis on which to move forward." Peace in the Middle East is "a difficult problem, one that ultimately those two peoples will have to resolve for themselves, but we've worked hard on that".

Pompeo's comments come in the wake of the unexpected resignation on 3 September of US President Donald Trump's adviser on the Middle East, and one of the key architects of the "deal of the century", Jason Greenblatt. Greenblatt is an Orthodox Jew from Teaneck, New Jersey, one of the most Jewish communities in the United States, and attended Yeshiva University before obtaining his law degree from NYU.

Senator Grassley has been trying to get his hands on a document related to the Hillary email investigation, but the DOJ just won't provide it. The corrupt DOJ must know that there is something very damaging about Hillary in it or it would be released.

Senator Chuck Grassley has been trying for years to get the DOJ to produce some highly classified material in regards to the Clinton email investigation, but the DOJ just won't provide him the material he has patiently waited to see. An August 14, 2019, letter from the Finance Committee/Homeland Security/Governmental Affairs Committee (Finance Committee Letter) outlines the progress to date of Grassley's request.

What the material that Grassley is seeking nobody really knows since Grassley's October 17, 2018, letter is classified, but apparently, as a condition of allowing Barr's nomination, Grassley asked Barr, if nominated, will you finally answer that letter. Barr says yes.

A recent UN Human Rights Council report has exposed the US, UK, and France's role in the destruction of Yemen, prompting conversations about the accountability of those responsible for the carnage.

Renowned activist, press freedom advocate, and Nobel Laureate Tawakul Karman once told the Yemen Times that "a day will come when all human rights violators pay for what they did to Yemen." This statement was made years before the US, UK, and France enabled a Saudi-led coalition to ravage Yemen's entire civilian population through a host of criminal actions.

Thanks to a UN report released on Tuesday this week, we may be closer to seeing some accountability for the criminal actions of all human rights violators who have used the people of Yemen in a cruel, geopolitical chess game to further their own agenda. But will Western governments be held accountable, or is this yet another case of wishful thinking?

Own a rifle? Got a scope to go with it? The U.S. government might soon know who you are, where you live and how to reach you.

That's because the government wants Apple and Google to hand over names, phone numbers and other identifying data of at least 10,000 users of a single gun scope app, Forbes has discovered. It's an unprecedented move: Never before has a case been disclosed in which American investigators demanded personal data of users of a single app from Apple and Google. And never has an order been made public where the feds have asked the Silicon Valley giants for info on so many thousands of people in one go.

According to an application for a court order filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on September 5, investigators want information on users of Obsidian 4, a tool used to control rifle scopes made by night-vision specialist American Technologies Network Corp. The app allows gun owners to get a live stream, take video and calibrate their gun scope from an Android or iPhone device. According to the Google Play page for Obsidian 4, it has more than 10,000 downloads. Apple doesn't provide download numbers, so it's unclear how many iPhone owners could be swept up in this latest government data grab.

Now that James Comey's corruption of the FBI has been exposed, the country awaits the next report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz. This one will deal with government misrepresentations to the special court that grants secret surveillance warrants on foreign agents in the United States.

To launch a counter-intelligence investigation on an American citizen, like Carter Page, the Department of Justice applies to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. All warrants require accuracy and integrity, but those to the FISA court should meet an even-higher standard. Why? Because, unlike criminal warrants, FISA warrants remain hidden. The goal is to "spy on spies," not haul them into court, so the application will remain secret, never challenged by a defense attorney at trial.

That's why the DoJ and FBI must certify, in writing, that the FISA application is truthful and complete and that the evidence it presents has been thoroughly vetted by the bureau. That's what the Obama administration's top law-enforcement officials did when they wanted to spy on Carter Page. It is becoming increasingly clear they were lying.

The United States' B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb may face an 18 month delay during production, with the W88 submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead facing a shorter delay, a top National Nuclear Security Administration official confirmed Wednesday.

The B61-12 life-extension program consolidates and replaces the older B61-3, -4, -7 and -10 variants, while the W88 Alteration 370 is meant to replace the arming, fuzing and firing subsystem for the W88 warhead for the Trident II sub-launched ballistic missile. The two are among five major modernization programs underway at the agency.

Both had been due for production in 2020, but neither will have their first production units delivered on time, according to Charles Verdon, the National Nuclear Security Administration's deputy administrator for defense programs. NNSA is working with the Defense Department to minimize the delays, but Congress has been informed both will be ready "roughly around the same time," Verdon said at the at the 2019 Defense News Conference.

The issue stems from off-the-shelf parts used in both weapons. Both systems are planned to work for 20-30 years, and heavy stress testing of the parts raised questions for NNSA officials about whether the parts would survive for three decades. Rather than risk the pieces failing years in the future, officials decided to seek replacements now and delay moving forward with the program.

Vital questions about perhaps the worst alleged presidential scandal in US history remain unanswered.

It must again be emphasized: It is hard, if not impossible, to think of a more toxic allegation in American presidential history than the one leveled against candidate, and then president, Donald Trump, that he "colluded" with the Kremlin in order to win the 2016 presidential election, and, still more, that Vladimir Putin's regime, "America's No. 1 threat," had compromising material on Trump that made him its "puppet." Or a more fraudulent accusation.

Even leaving aside the misperception that Russia is the primary threat to the US in world affairs, no aspect of this allegation has turned out to be true, as should have been evident from the outset. Major aspects of the now infamous Steele Dossier, on which much of the allegation was based, were themselves not merely "unverified" but plainly implausible.

Was it plausible, for example, that Trump, a longtime owner and operator of international hotels, would commit an indiscreet act in a Moscow hotel that he did not own or control? Or that, as Steele also claimed, high-level Kremlin sources had fed him damning anti-Trump information even though their vigilant boss, Putin, wanted Trump to win the election? Nonetheless, the American mainstream media and other important elements of the US political establishment relied on Steele's allegations for nearly three years, even heroizing him, and some still do, explicitly or implicitly.

Not surprisingly, former special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. No credible evidence has been produced that Russia's "interference" affected the result of the 2016 presidential election in any significant way. Nor was Russian "meddling" in the election anything akin to a "digital Pearl Harbor," as widely asserted, and it was certainly far less and less intrusive than President Bill Clinton's political and financial "interference" undertaken to assure the reelection of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996.

Nonetheless, Russiagate's core allegation persists, like a legend, in US political life, in media commentary, in financial solicitations by some Democratic candidates for Congress, and, as is clear from my own discussions, in the minds of otherwise well-informed people.

The only way to dispel, to excoriate, such a legend is to learn and expose how it began, by whom, when, and why.