My Corporate Visa Card Was Evidently Cloned

Likely cloned in Fernandina or Yulee, used in Bradenton, Ocala, St. Pete and Clermont.

Advertisements

On June 28th I discovered that my Corporate (LLC) Credit Card has been used to purchase $772.20 in merchandise at four different Lowe’s and $67.18 at a Shell Station, all in central Florida, between the 21st and 27th of June.  It was also denied at a Lowe’s in Plant City ($196.00).  I presume the Shell purchase was fuel and the Lowe’s purchases were likely power tools that could be easily resold.

I use the card infrequently, only twenty-eight (28) times this year:

  • Four (4) times at different restaurants (Feb, Mar, May & Jun)
  • Two (2) times at  a local merchant (TM, Jan & Feb)
  • Four (4) times at a local merchant (TA, Jan, Feb & Jun)
  • Two (2) times at a Chain Store (WM, Apr & Jun)
  • Four (4) times at a Chain Store (LS, Apr & Jun)
    • Three (3) time via on-line (cc on file) (May & Jun)
  • One (1) time at local merchant (LF, May)
  • Three (3) online transactions (May & June)
    • One had cc on file.
  • One (1) time at a local merchant (AP, June)

Of these, the card was out of my possession in only six (6) instances and entered online in two (2) instances.  In all other cases it would have had to been a cyber breach of the merchants scanner or database.

The first use of the cloned card was on 21st at 3:45 pm at Lowe’s in Clermont for $196.84.

The next day, 22nd at 3:01 it was used at Lowe’s in St. Pete for $198.54.

June 23 at 4;13 pm at Lowe’s in Plant City, it failed on a purchase of 196.00.  It also failed on the 28th at 4:36 pm at a Shell Station in Brandon.  I presume the failures to clear were a denial by Visa.

At 8:41 am on the 26th, $67.18 was charged at a Shell Service Station in Tampa.

It was use again on the 26th at 2:58 pm at Lowe’s in Bradenton for $191.43.

The next day, 27th it was used at Lowe’s in Ocala at 2:24 pm for $189.39.

I have disputed the purchases and should know the result of the investigation within ten days.

How to create a FB fake news story and get clicks from your target audience.

The FB Post

Start with an image that invokes the hot issue of the day, the Southwest Border Immigration Issue.  It doesn’t matter that the photo is from a PolitiFact story Fact-checking claims on immigration and has nothing to do with your fake post.

Detention

Add an attention grabbing banner, tying it to the Immigration Issue using ‘detention officer’.

Texas detention officer charged with ‘super aggravated sexual assault’ of a 4-year-old girl after authorities say her mother, …

Link it to you site (Businessinsider.com) where you are running a story by Clark Mindock of the Independent (www.independent.co.uk) where you continue:

an undocumented immigrant, was being blackmailed to stay silent about the abuse — or face deportation

The only problem is the story has nothing to do with the DHS Detention Facilities invoked by the photo.

It is a story about a Texas sheriff’s deputy, a detention officer at the jail,  who is believed to be related (father?) to the 4-year old.

Family Separation at the Border

Background

CNN published a interview with  Doris Meissner, the director of the US immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute, whose parent organization is  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Meissner is also a former commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, where she served from 1993-2000.  [highlights added by Old Curmudgeon]

Meissner: Before the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, families arriving at the border without authorization to enter but claiming a credible fear if returned home were permitted to enter to apply for asylum. Whether or not they were detained while applying for asylum depended on a series of court rulings and legislation, in addition to the availability of detention bed space.

A 1997 court settlement [Clinton Era] agreed to by the US government in a case called Flores v. Reno, which remains in effect today, requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs willing to accept custody. If children cannot be released, Flores requires the government to hold them in the “least restrictive” setting available. The 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, signed by President George W. Bush, codified parts of the settlement into federal law.

In 2015 [Obama Era], a federal judge in California [United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]  ruled that the Flores requirements apply not only to unaccompanied minors but also to children apprehended with their parents, meaning that all minors must be released from detention if possible. The judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release parents detained along with their children. An appeals court in 2016 [Obama Era] affirmed that Flores applied to all children but reversed the ruling that parents should be released as well.

Amid a surge in family flows, there were not enough detention beds available to hold families even for the 20 days allowed under the court settlement, causing many to be released. The family detention system currently has capacity to hold just 2,700 people at a time — resulting in the “catch and release” that President Trump railed against in his election campaign and since.

What changed?

Meissner: The change the Trump administration has made is to declare and try to implement a zero-tolerance policy at the US-Mexico border: Criminal prosecution of all people who seek to cross illegally between ports of entry. With Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement on April 7 that all illegal crossers would be prosecuted in federal court for illegal entry or re-entry, the administration essentially ensured that parents would be separated from their children because minors cannot be kept in federal criminal detention facilities. So the parents are now being transferred from the Border Patrol to the US Marshals Service and then are being tried in court for the misdemeanor of illegal entry or the felony charge of illegal re-entry. As a result, their children are turned over to the custody of the Department of Health Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The Trump administration’s blanket policy to prosecute all illegal crossers, including family groups, is new. However, it builds upon earlier efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations. In 2005, the Bush administration launched Operation Streamline in one Border Patrol sector in Texas, aiming to criminally prosecute illegal crossers. Between 2003 and 2005, criminal prosecutions of first-time unauthorized crossers for illegal entry or re-entry more than quadrupled, from 4,000 to 16,500. By 2010, they had reached 44,000. Operation Streamline was extended to some other Border Patrol sectors and continued under the Obama administration, reaching a peak 97,000 criminal prosecutions in 2013.
Still, the phenomenon of families arriving at the US-Mexico border together dates from just the last few years, and was not one that the Bush or early Obama administrations confronted in any significant numbers. Few children were separated from their families during the earlier administrations as a result of criminal prosecution of the parents.

Was this outcome — lots of young children being separated from their parents — expected? Is it worse than people thought?

Meissner: We don’t know what the internal deliberations and planning were within the administration. But it seems obvious that there should have been immediate recognition that implementation of a zero-tolerance policy would almost instantly result in a de facto policy of family separation. Accordingly, the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, which was already dealing with significant capacity issues surrounding the care of a separate flow of unaccompanied minors, would need to be in position to provide additional housing and care for a child population that is uniquely vulnerable.

ORR’s job in dealing with unaccompanied minors is to seek to reunite children with relatives already in the United States. The difference now is the agency, which is an arm of the government that has deliberately separated these families, is dealing with children who are traumatized by that separation as well as any traumas they suffered along the migration journey or in their country of origin. With reports that ORR is opening a tent city for children in El Paso, has contracted with a service provider to house children in a former Walmart, etc., the capacity issues are proving significant — and are likely to continue as long as the zero-tolerance policy continues.

The Process

Port-of-Entry Asylum Claim

This is the preferred way for asylum claims to be handled.  The problem is the capacity/throughput of the port-of-entry facilities, which results in asylum seekers being told to come back later.   Wait times of 5 – 13 day are being reported.  Just to put this in context these are predominantly those whose arrive via the much publicized Central American Caravan.  It is reported that CBP processes an average of three families per day at the Tijuana Port-of-Entry.

With the “zero-tolerance” policy in place, high-ranking U.S. government officials, including Sessions, have said that migrants presenting their asylum claims at ports of entry would not be prosecuted.

It remains unclear whether the government will provide additional resources to help process those claims.  Clearly it is within DHS/CBP capability to increase the throughput.

DHS/CBP Apprehension

A family apprehended crossing the border, at other than a port-of-entry, is taken into custody by Customs Border Protection.

Prior to the zero-tolerance program adults without criminal histories who crossed the border with children were not referred for prosecution. Instead, some were booked into immigrant family detention centers[1] and others were referred for civil deportation proceedings and released

At this point they are processed based on country of origin.  Those from Mexico, who opt for expedited removal are returned to Mexico after processing.  Those from non-contiguous countries have a right to a deportation hearing.  Both groups may apply for asylum.  Minors are either unaccompanied minors or part of a family unit.  DHS verifies that minor in family units are legitimately offspring or wards of the adult(s).  If DHS determines the minor is not an offspring or ward they are recategorized as unaccompanied minors

The Flores decision as modified in 2015 allows HHS to detain minor children with their parents for 20 days in Family immigration detention centers.

 In 2015 under the Obama administration, a federal judge ruled that Flores applied to migrant children who came with their parents, not just children who came alone. An appeals court confirmed that decision a year later.

[1] There are three Family immigration detention centers, with a capacity of 3,335 beds: Berks Family Residential Center in Berks County, Pennsylvania (Berks), Karnes Residential Center in Karnes City, Texas (Karnes) and South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley , Texas (Dilley). Prior to 2014, the Obama administration had ended large-scale family detention in Texas, with Berks being the only family detention center in operation. By the end of 2014, Karnes and Dilley had opened while a fourth facility, the Artesia Family Residential Center in New Mexico, had both opened and closed amongst a firestorm of criticism

HHS Custody

On March 1, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 462, transferred responsibilities for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

Since then, ORR has cared for more than 175,000 children, incorporating child welfare values as well as the principles and provisions established by the Flores Agreement in 1997, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and its reauthorization acts, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005 and 2008.

Unaccompanied alien children apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration officials are transferred to the care and custody of ORR. ORR promptly places an unaccompanied child in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child, taking into consideration danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. ORR takes into consideration the unique nature of each child’s situation and incorporates child welfare principles when making placement, clinical, case management, and release decisions that are in the best interest of the child.  The average length of stay in HHS shelters, in FY2017 was 41 days.

In 2017 HHS received 40,810 minors referred from DHS.

Under the Flores decision after 20 days children held in Family immigration detention centers are recategorized as unaccompanied minors and transferred to HHS/ORR.  Since the inception of the zero-tolerance program 2,000+ minors have reached the 20 day limit and  been reclassified as unaccompanied minors (Flores decision) and transferred to HHS/ORR.

The Declination Decision

The IG Report identified the sources of Classified Material on Clinton’s email server as:

Originators of classified information (i.e., individuals who introduced
classified information into unclassified emails, including State
Department Bureau of Public Affairs employees, an individual who regularly interfaced with State Department employees, State Department Operations Center employees, and other State Department employees responsible for conveying information to their superiors);

  • U.S. government employees who had involvement with a specific Top
    Secret//Special Access Program (“TS//SAP”);
  • Senior aides to former Secretary Clinton, including Huma Abedin,
    Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan; and
  • Former Secretary Clinton herself.

In his July 5th Statement FBI Director James Comey said:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

The IG Report (op. cit.) goes on to state:

As summarized below, the Midyear prosecutors concluded that there was not
a basis to prosecute former Secretary Clinton, her senior aides, or others under any of these statutes. The prosecutors cited the following factual conclusions from the investigation as critical to its recommendation not to prosecute:

  1. None of the emails contained clear classification markings as required
    under Executive Order 13526 and its predecessor. Only three email
    chains contained any classification markings of any kind. These email
    chains had one or two paragraphs that were marked “(C)” for
    “Confidential” but contained none of the other required markings, such
    as classification headers.
  2. There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton
    believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified
    information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the
    prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the
    sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not
    classified.
  3. The senders and former Secretary Clinton relied on the judgment of
    employees experienced in protecting sensitive information to properly
    handle classified information.
  4. The emails in question were sent to other government officials in
    furtherance of the senders’ official duties. There was no evidence that
    the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified
    information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they
    intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized
    systems.
  5. There was no evidence that former Secretary Clinton had any
    contemporaneous concerns about the classified status of the
    information that was conveyed on her unclassified systems, nor any
    evidence that any individual ever contemporaneously conveyed such
    concerns to her.
  6. Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they
    saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the
    prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence
    that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully
    communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or
    willfully retained the same.
  7. The senders used unclassified emails because of “operational tempo,”
    that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department
    officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified
    systems. To accomplish this, senders often refrained from using
    specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully
    in an attempt to avoid transmitting classified information.
  8. There was no evidence that Clinton set up her servers or private email
    account with the intent of communicating or retaining classified
    information, or that she had knowledge that classified information
    would be communicated or retained on it.

To highlight Director Comey’s ‘any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.’  The following is from DoD Initial Orientation and Awareness Training Student Guide, this is DOD guidance, I am sure DOS has similar training.

In addition to storing classified information in an approved container, there are
other requirements for protecting classified information. You must:

  • Use a secure telephone
  • Maintain control of the material at all times
  • Never leave classified information unattended
  • Never “talk around” classified information by using codes or hints

Remember, you must never divulge any classified information to unauthorized
personnel regardless of the passage of time, the public source of disclosure of
data, limitations or their prior clearance, access, or employment status. There is no statute of limitations regarding the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Contact your Security Office for any questions.

It goes on to state:

There are different procedures for transmitting and transporting Top Secret/SCI,
Secret, Confidential, and CUI information:

  • Top Secret may be transmitted by:
    • Direct contact between cleared U.S. personnel
    • Protected facsimile, message, voice (Secure Telephone Equipment (STE))
    • Defense Courier Service (DCS)
    • Appropriately cleared courier

Looking at the ‘factual conclusions’ individually:

  1. None of the emails contained clear classification markings as required
    under Executive Order 13526 and its predecessor. Only three email
    chains contained any classification markings of any kind. These email
    chains had one or two paragraphs that were marked “(C)” for
    “Confidential” but contained none of the other required markings, such
    as classification headers.

The responsibility of marking an email with the proper classification marking falls on the originator of the email.  The only way a properly marked document could be contained in an email would be via ‘cut & paste’ or enclosure.  Both of which are impossible on an unclassified system unless the source document has been surreptitiously removed from a classified system/space.  There were a handful of emails that contained confidential (c) paragraph markings, either the author of the documents marked them that way and intentionally left off the classified header/footer or they were ‘cut & paste’ from a classified document copied on an unclassified system.  In either case the originator knew they were classified!

The remainder of the unmarked classified documents were either; 1) classified documents with marking removed, 2) attempts to sanitize classified material via talking around classified information by using codes or hints, or 3) original thoughts of the author which should have been marked.

If I read the report correctly no attempt was made to investigate the computers used to create the emails.

Clinton testified that she did not recognize these paragraph markings as denoting classified information.  The report recounts this relative to her interview:

Prosecutor 1 told the OIG that the discussion with Lynch about Secretary
Clinton’s interview included whether Clinton was credible when she testified that (C) paragraph markings in an email could mean subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), rather than that the paragraph contained information classified at the “Confidential” level. Prosecutor 1 stated that he told Lynch that Clinton’s testimony “strained credulity a little bit because, well, if anyone knows Confidential, the State Department is the entity that uses Confidential information a lot.” He said that they discussed with Lynch that their reaction to this explanation was skeptical, but that they also did not know what “people at the very highest levels” understood about classification markings.

Prosecutor 4 said that he recalled Yates also asking whether former Secretary Clinton was truthful in her interview, and that they all responded that she
was. He said that this answer caused him some “consternation” but that he did not disagree. [footnote 160]  Asked to explain this statement, Prosecutor 4 told the OIG that he did not think that former Secretary Clinton lied in a provable way, but that her responses to questions about paragraph markings for information designated as “Confidential” and her statement that the private server was set up for convenience were questionable. Prosecutor 4 stated, “My view was and still remains that the private email server was set up to avoid FOIA…. [I]f you look at Colin Powell’s email, he pretty much was trying to avoid FOIA too.”

[Text of footnote 160]  On July 8, 2016, following Comey’s congressional testimony about the Midyear investigation described in Chapter Six, Prosecutor 3 emailed Strzok and Prosecutors 1, 2, and 4 and stated the following:

[O]ne thing that was apparent just from the highlights of the Committee hearings that I saw last night was the fact that the Director’s statements about the number and levels of classified doc[ument]s found are being used by the Hill and others to claim that [Clinton] was lying when she has said in the past that she never sent or received classified info[rmation]. What undercuts the ability to prove intent in support of a false statement charge is that when [Clinton] made these statements she didn’t have the benefit of later findings by those who did the classification reviews and of course there weren’t the classification markings on the emails to put her on notice, and give us the ability to prove, that she was lying. This never seemed to get discussed or emphasized in the clips I saw last night.

It should not have been difficult for the FBI/DOJ to determine if “people at the very highest levels” had received the required annual security training.  In my experience I signed a affidavit stating that I had completed my annual training.

2.  There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton
believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified
information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the
prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the
sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not
classified.

It should not have been very difficult, in the case of the TS/SCI information, to show that the individuals had access to the TS/SCI classified information and the the contents of the emails replicated the classified information.  The same analysis could also be applied to other documents.

There is no evidence in the IG Report that any attempt was made to do this.  If you don’t look for evidence you won’t find any.

3.  The senders and former Secretary Clinton relied on the judgment of
employees experienced in protecting sensitive information to properly
handle classified information.

In my experience this would imply that they had asked their Special Security Officer or Classified Material Custodian to review the emails.  I am confident this was not the case.

The admonishment in the training “Contact your Security Office for any questions.”

 4. The emails in question were sent to other government officials in
furtherance of the senders’ official duties. There was no evidence that
the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified
information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they
intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized
systems.

“other government officials in furtherance of the senders’ official duties” does not satisfy the “need to know” and “proper clearance” edicts in the transmission of classified information.  There was also “an individual who regularly interfaced with State Department employees” in the senders group.  It is possible that this individual was not a government employee, possibly Sidney Blumenthal.

 5. There was no evidence that former Secretary Clinton had any
contemporaneous concerns about the classified status of the
information that was conveyed on her unclassified systems, nor any
evidence that any individual ever contemporaneously conveyed such
concerns to her.

This seems to me, to support the “grossly negligent” action of 18 USC 793.  This also goes back to Director Comey’s ‘any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position’.

6. Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they
saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the
prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence
that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully
communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or
willfully retained the same.

Not hard to believe ‘did not reveal’ when the mission of the investigation was:  ‘Strzok stated that Giuliano told the team, “[T]his is not going to become some octopus…. The focus of the investigation [is] the appearance of classified information on [Clinton’s] personal emails and that server during the time she was Secretary of State.” Strzok further stated that the FBI’s “purpose and mission” was not to pursue “spilled [classified] information to the ends of the earth” and that the task of cleaning up classified spills by State Department employees was referred back to the State Department.  If you don’t look it won’t be revealed.  It is hard to believe that the FBI or other agencies didn’t do a ‘spillage’ investigation and assessment of harm to national security.

7. The senders used unclassified emails because of “operational tempo,”
that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department
officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified
systems. To accomplish this, senders often refrained from using
specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully
in an attempt to avoid transmitting classified information.

There is no “operational tempo” exception to “Never “talk around” classified information by using codes or hints”  See – Hero Marine Nailed for Secret Email: What Did He Do That Hillary Didn’t?   – Meanwhile, a decorated Marine officer who has deployed four times faces being discharged from the corps he loves because he used his personal email to send a single classified report as an urgent warning when lives were at stake.  See also the story of Harold Thomas Martin III and his indictment.

8. There was no evidence that Clinton set up her servers or private email
account with the intent of communicating or retaining classified
information, or that she had knowledge that classified information
would be communicated or retained on it.

IMHO the intent of the server/account has nothing to do with the fact that classified information was improperly stored on the unsecure system.

Correcting AG Session’s Grammer

“I’m confident that Deputy Rosenstein, after 28 years in the Department of Justice, did not improperly threaten anyone on that occasion,” Sessions told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Cite: Read Newsmax: Jeff Sessions Calls Rosenstein ‘Subpoena’ Report a ‘Mischaracterization’ | Newsmax.com 

If we correct AG Session’s grammar and remove the double negative ‘not improperly’ with ‘properly’ we have:

“I’m confident that Deputy Rosenstein, after 28 years in the Department of Justice, did properly threaten anyone on that occasion,” Sessions told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

It’s time for Deputy AG Rosenstein to recuse himself, threatening Congressional staff for lawfully conduction their oversight responsibility.

The Trump Kim Summit – A System Engineer’s View.

Given an elapsed time of 4:31, including lunch, from handshake to signing I have to wonder how much of the rather boilerplate “joint statement” was prepared beforehand based on staff meetings?  An initial start on the Goal, Context, Strategy, Objective, Tactics and Metrics taxonomy of the Objective-Driven  system engineering process.

GOST
Source: FHWA

A key element will be the fleshing out of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, to include what it means and what it does not mean, in the Context development.

The metrics in this case will be the results of the verification methodology.  Let’s hope that this process is better managed and more transparent than the Iran JPOA.

Timeline based on NYMAG report.

9:20 pm EDT June 11, 2018

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) sit down for private meeting with only interpreters present.

9:59 pm EDT June 11, 2018

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and staffs sit down for bilateral discussions.

Bilat
Bilateral Discussions [cite: NYMAG]

12:04 am EDT June 12, 2018

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and staffs sit down for “working lunch”

Menu
Working Lunch Menu [cite: NYMAG]

Great product placement Haagen-Dazs!!!

1:51 am EDT June 12, 2018

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) sign Joint Statement.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.–DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.  President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.–DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

  1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.–DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
  2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
  3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
  4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the U.S.–DPRK summit—the first in history—was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously.  The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.–DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.–DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America

KIM JONG UN
Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

June 12, 2018
Sentosa Island
Singapore

Anatomy of a Fake Meme.

Uses a 2014 Copyrighted photo.

This 2014 copyrighted photo

ICE
JUNE 25, 2014, 5:05 PM, GRANJENO, TEXAS Ð An infant cries as U.S. Border Patrol agents process a group of immigrants in Granjeno, Texas. The city is just north of ÒEl Rincon del Diablo,Ó the DevilÕs Corner, a hotbed of illegal border crossing on the Rio Grande by juvenile and mothers with children immigrants from Central America. Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-News / ©2014 San Antonio Express-News
Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-News

was used in this Meme shared by a progressive friend on my FB page.  The original post is from Not My President.  The meme has received 3,582 Shares and 791 Comments.

ICE2

My reply to my FB friend:
This Is Fake News/Meme – the original photo, from JUNE 25, 2014 (Obama Era) is titled “An infant cries as U.S. Border Patrol agents process a group of immigrants in Granjeno, Texas. The city is just north of ÒEl Rincon del Diablo,Ó the DevilÕs Corner, a hotbed of illegal border crossing on the Rio Grande by juvenile and mothers with children immigrants from Central America.”
Copyrighted Photo by Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-News, is this a case of copyright infringement.
The Story is: “Texas bottles up funds Congress approved for border cities” published in San Antonio Express-News.
The lead paragraph “Texas border cities are still awaiting nearly $1 million in federal reimbursements for providing humanitarian aid during a 2014 crisis sparked by a wave of immigrants seeking to cross into the United States.” with operative words “humanitarian aid” vice “prisons“.
From Not My President FB’s About page we learn they are a PAC and their web site is:  https://notmypresidentpac.com/.    Their web site About Page states:

Our Story
TOGETHER, WE’RE GROWING STRONGER BY THE DAY.
Not My President began in the weeks after the 2016 election, when hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans came together online to organize and resist Trump’s agenda. Our community has quickly grown to over a million Americans, across all 50 states, who are taking action and making their voices heard.

Hundreds of thousands of progressives in the Not My President community have contacted their members of Congress by phone, fax, and social media to stand up to Trump’s corruption, protect health care, and get to the bottom of Trump’s ties to Russia.

We’re committed to providing you with the information you need to take impactful action and make your voice heard. The fight ahead won’t be easy, but we’re proud to be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.

Tips on how we can better serve you? Let us know — we’re all ears.

BY THE NUMBERS
600,000+ PROGRESSIVES.
The Not My President community is in all 50 states and every congressional district.

200,000+ CALLS TO CONGRESS.
Our voices have been heard by every member of the House and Senate.

180,000+ FAXES SENT.
Our innovative fax tool bypasses busy congressional phone lines and gives progressives a new way to resist.

65,000+ TARGETED TWEETS.
Our “find your representative” tool makes it easy for progressives to target their representatives in key moments.

28,000+ PROTESTORS MOBILIZED.
We’ve partnered with other resistance groups to mobilize around nationwide events, like March For Our Lives, the Tax March and the March for Truth.

15,000+ GRASSROOTS DONORS.
Our average online gift is less than $16.

Paid For By Not My President PAC

Not Authorized By Any Candidate or Candidate Committee

30 N Gould St. Sheridan, WY 82801