There are some good people at Lowe’s!


VA a no show; store workers fix vet’s wheelchair

In this July 15, 2014 photo, Michael Sulsona, a Vietnam War veteran who lost both legs to a land mine 40 years ago, poses with a “thank you” sign while seated in his new wheelchair at home in Staten Island, N.Y.

By Verena Dobnik of Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — What the Veterans Administration failed to do for double amputee Michael Sulsona in two years, some New York hardware store workers delivered in an hour: They fixed his broken wheelchair.

The 62-year-old Vietnam veteran said he petitioned the VA for a new chair two years ago and received no reply. Then his wheelchair broke last week.

When Sulsona was in a Lowe’s home improvement store on Staten Island, a bolt on the already worn-out wheelchair snapped and a back wheel was about to fall off. Three Lowe’s employees stayed late after their 10 p.m. closing time to do the repair, for free.

“They said, ‘You’re not leaving till it’s like new again,’” Sulsona recalled.

The next day, Sulsona wrote a letter to his local newspaper, the Staten Island Advance, to thank the store’s employees.

“I kept thanking them and all they could say was, ‘It was our honor,’” he wrote. “The actions of these three employees at Lowe’s showed me there are some who still believe in stepping to the plate. … Someone needed help and they felt privileged to be given the opportunity.”

Sulsona, an ex-Marine, said he lost his legs in 1971 during an explosion while on patrol.

Naturally, the Veterans Administration had the “appropriate” response:

After his letter to the newspaper, the VA got word of Sulsona and sent him a brand-new wheelchair Tuesday.

In other words, after they were humiliated in public, the VA did something; not before.

There is a Lowe’s store in Lehighton, and I do a considerable amount of shopping there; we spent thousands at Lowe’s on the kitchen remodeling project. And we found out one thing first hand: Lowe’s offers service members a 10% discount on everything, as long as they have their military IDs with them; that has saved us a lot of money.

A few years ago, at the Lehighton Lowe’s, I was looking for something, and asked one of the red vests — Lowe’s store employees wear red vests — where I could find a particular item. He told me in which aisle, and started to take me there. I told him that he didn’t have to do that, and he responded, “Sure I do; you’re my paycheck.” Now, I don’t know if he was trained to respond that way by Lowe’s, or if that was just his existing attitude, but the man understood how business works, and that it is the customers who keep him employed. I appreciated that.
While this site accepts paid advertisements, this is a regular article from the editor, and is not a paid advertisement.

The problem with feminism

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has written a lot of articles lately concerning feminism, and he has been concentrating on the self-appointed feminist leadership, which is absolutely eaten up with radical professors, gender theorists and lesbians.  (Do you think that I’ve included enough links? :) ) Mr McCain’s purpose is obvious, to separate the basic notions of feminism that I’d guess most women, and even most men, accept, that people ought to be paid equally when they do equal work, and that there should be no bars to school admissions or career opportunities based on sex, which are not absolutely essential,1 from the feminist “leadership.”  Mr McCain’s position can be summed up quite briefly: the professional feminists are just plain nuts.

But that leaves the non-nuts part of feminism wide open: it isn’t nuts to think that people ought to have equal opportunities,2 and reap equal rewards, regardless of race or sex.  In fact, I’d call that a basic part of capitalism, part of a system which rewards industry and hard work and stick-to-it-ivness; to throw in additional barriers for non-essential reasons is to harm the economy.

It was at this point that I was interested in what Mr McCain had to say:

Unthinking acceptance of simple slogans, a superficial discourse built around glittering generalities — “equality,” “choice,” etc. — is not an ideology, nor could this bland kind of feminism ever have been enough to inspire an enduring political movement. Even while they ignore the chasm between radical theory and their own feminism, however, women seem surprised to find that real life contradicts even the least controversial understanding of “sexual equality”:

I have always found it hard and confusing to be both a feminist and happily married. Why? Because in a good marriage, where both parties are equally happy, no one is keeping score. Feminists emphasize equality of roles, but in a real life marriage, this isn’t always realistic.

If women make equality the measure of their happiness, they are hopelessly doomed to misery in real life, if their ambitions include men, marriage and motherhood. Somewhere, there may be a perfect Feminist Man acceptable to the egalitarian ideal, but feminists generally mock that possibility.

The problem has been succinctly identified: people are keeping score, and, for the feminists, it seems that they must keep score on other people’s marriages.

So, if my wife and daughters are primarily the ones who do the dishes, and if I am exclusively the one who cuts the grass, are these things pretty well balanced out, or will they Offend A Feminist™ because the tasks are not only physically different (though not necessarily difficulty or time-wise different) but plain not identical? If I must wash the dishes exactly as often as the womenfolk, mustn’t they lawn the mow (a Picoism, not a typo) just as often as I do the dishes?

This is the inherent problem with Other People’s Feminism: since equivalent is not equal, and is much more of a judgement call, an adversely inclined judge is going to see these things as inherently unequal. Never mind the fact that God or evolution or Mother Nature decided to build me much taller and stronger than my wife and daughters, and that physical strength is an asset when pushing a mowlawner uphill, any sort of skills-conscious division of labor which does not parcel out tasks exactly identically is inherently cisheteronormatively patriarchal and wholly sexist.

And this is the beginning of where the where the Professional Feminists have veered off into the weeds. It was, I suppose, inevitable, because the Professional Feminists need to have a point of contention, need to pick the nit and blow it up into something monstrous and all-consuming and just plain wrong, or they lose their entire raison d’être, and, in effect, their jobs. If the Professional Feminist has nothing about which to complain, her next complain will be that she’s out of work.

This needs to be pointed out, because men and women are not enemies. We are meant to go together, and the survival of humanity depends upon men and women being together. The Professional Feminists see men as their enemies, because they have to see men as their enemies — something which would explain, as Mr McCain points out, the high concentration of lesbians among the Professional Feminists — but such is the complete opposite of what nature requires our society to be.

The unexceptional feminism, the feminism of common sense, isn’t enough, because those “battles” have already been won. Women no longer need — and I would argue, never needed — Affirmative Action to win collegiate admissions, and women have outnumbered men in college enrollment for decades. If women already outnumber men in collegiate admissions, earn more university degrees than do men, about what can the Professional Feminists complain?3

Conservatives have no objection to the feminism of common sense, and it’s pretty much the way married couples live their lives. Couples, at least happy couples, don’t keep score when it comes to doing the things around the house that need to be done; my wife doesn’t have to tell me to cut the grass, or shovel the snow, because I’m perfectly capable of seeing it myself, and just do it.

That, of course, is the problem for the Professional Feminists. They are losing, at least as far as votes for Republicans versus Democrats are concerned, with married women; it is only amongst unmarried women that the Democrats have an advantage in elections. Given how wedded — pun definitely intended — the Professional Feminists are to the Democrats and liberal politics, their efforts to make men appear to be the enemy of women is actually the least feminist thing that they could do, since marriage is the primary determinant of economic success. Virtually everything that the Professional Feminists do winds up hurting women. But anyone who thought that they were ever concerned with anybody but themselves has really fooled himself; the Professional Feminists would gladly throw every woman who wasn’t among their personal friends right under the bus, as long as it kept them in their positions.

  1. I am referring here to things such as the bar to women serving directly in the infantry, a prohibition which the Obama Administration is trying to end, but a restriction which is reasonable. I have argued previously that women should be allowed to serve in the infantry, as long as they are capable of meeting the standards impose on male infantrymen, something very few women can do. I would further argue that private institutions may retain sex discriminatory policies, such as the continuation of all male or all female colleges, and that religious institutions may have sexually segregated positions. There is enough variety of opportunity in this country that Bryn Mawr College, for example, can remain all female without imposing any unfair burden on males.
  2. Note here that equal opportunities does not include special considerations, quotas, set asides or Affirmative Action, and that equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes.
  3. Naturally, they came up with something, a claim that when two drunk college students copulate, it’s actually the man raping the woman. A lot more could be written about that, and Mr McCain has, but that isn’t the purpose of this article.

Another unintended consequence?

From The Wall Street Journal:

The Full-Time Scandal of Part-Time America
Fewer than half of U.S. adults are working full time. Why? Slow growth and the perverse incentives of ObamaCare.
By Mortimer Zuckerman | July 13, 2014 6:47 p.m. ET

There has been a distinctive odor of hype lately about the national jobs report for June. Most people will have the impression that the 288,000 jobs created last month were full-time. Not so.

The Obama administration and much of the media trumpeting the figure overlooked that the government numbers didn’t distinguish between new part-time and full-time jobs. Full-time jobs last month plunged by 523,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What has increased are part-time jobs. They soared by about 800,000 to more than 28 million. Just think of all those Americans working part time, no doubt glad to have the work but also contending with lower pay, diminished benefits and little job security.

On July 2 President Obama boasted that the jobs report “showed the sixth straight month of job growth” in the private economy. “Make no mistake,” he said. “We are headed in the right direction.” What he failed to mention is that only 47.7% of adults in the U.S. are working full time. Yes, the percentage of unemployed has fallen, but that’s worth barely a Bronx cheer. It reflects the bleak fact that 2.4 million Americans have become discouraged and dropped out of the workforce. You might as well say that the unemployment rate would be zero if everyone quit looking for work.

Last month involuntary part-timers swelled to 7.5 million, compared with 4.4 million in 2007. Way too many adults now depend on the low-wage, part-time jobs that teenagers would normally fill. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen had it right in March when she said: “The existence of such a large pool of partly unemployed workers is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate.”

More at the original, but I do want to quote one more paragraph, slightly further down:

But there is one clear political contribution to the dismal jobs trend. Many employers cut workers’ hours to avoid the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to provide health insurance to anyone working 30 hours a week or more. The unintended consequence of President Obama’s “signature legislation”? Fewer full-time workers. In many cases two people are working the same number of hours that one had previously worked.

Way, way back in the late 90s, I was part of a company management meeting where the Vice President was trying to cut overtime, saying that if a man worked 67½ hours, it would be less expensive for the company to have a second employee working 40 hours, and the first man held to 40. Well, that was over-simplified, due to the fixed costs of the second employee, primarily the health insurance plan, though there were other things. Nothing was ever done to meet the Vice President’s objections, because workers in ready-mixed concrete have come to depend on overtime, and cutting back those workers to 40 hours, and adding replacement workers to cover the hours beyond 40 would mean a loss of the most skilled and valuable men.1

But what Mr Zuckerman is noting is a statistical trend which indicates that that Vice President’s thinking is being employed in a different manner: it’s not the denial of overtime work, which results in wage savings due to not having to pay time-and-a-half, but the avoidance of having to provide health insurance for these employees. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that, in 2013, the average cost of employer-sponsored family health insurance coverage was $16,351, of which $4,565 pas paid by the employee, normally by payroll deductions, and the remainder, $11,786, was paid by the employer.2 Given that most of the jobs which can be kept part-time are lower-skilled, higher turnover jobs,3 essentially the type we think of as near minimum wage jobs, providing health insurance is effectively a 43% increase in per hour labor costs.4 As long as employers are restricting such thinking to the most quickly trained and easily replaced workers, it makes perfect economic sense to do just what Mr Zuckerman has pointed out.

In one way, the Obama Administration’s policies have exacerbated the very income inequality problems about which it complains. In yet another article, the Journal noted that many small businesses are having a difficult time finding good employees in the higher job skill positions. Those are the positions for which there will be no questions at all concerning whether companies provide health insurance: they are competing for a too-small labor pool, and providing health insurance coverage is just plain required to hire such people. Thus, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has led to the (apparently) unintended consequence5 of widening the wage gap, not narrowing it. It doesn’t require a PhD in economics to see and understand that, but it does, seemingly, require having more economic and common sense than is possessed by the Obama Administration.

  1. I have been a salaried employee through almost all of my twenty-eight years in this business, so it wouldn’t have included me.
  2. Economically, I would argue that it was all paid by the employee, in that the employer’s portion of health insurance really constitutes part of the employee’s total compensation. However, this arrangement means that employees are receiving, in effect, $11,786 in untaxed wages, and that untaxed portion means untaxed throughout the income and wage tax systems, federal, state and municipal. To show this effective $5.67 per hour wage (based on a 40 hour week) as part of salaries and wages would mean a huge tax increase, throughout all levels of government, on employees.
  3. The Journal also noted the decrease in job turnover, which not only has depressing effects on the wages of entry-level workers, but reduces turnover costs for the employers of low-skilled workers.
  4. This assumes the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, plus the effective $5.67 per hour cost, at full time, for employer-provided health insurance, using the averages reported by the Kaiser Foundation. Different companies would see different figures, but the averages illustrate the point sufficiently.
  5. Have there been any actually intended consequences of Obama Administration policies?

Economics 101: has made me wealthier

No, not through site advertising; I don’t even make a pittance there.

But Saturday night I bought The Particles of the Universe by Jeff Yee, for a whopping 99¢, with no sales tax, delivered to my Tablet in seconds. If I had bought the same book, printed, it would have meant at least $8.95 for the book, 54¢ for sales tax, and around $12 of gasoline to drive to and from Barnes & Noble to get it.

The book, which I just started reading, discusses the theories of Gabriel LaFreniere, which hold that the neutrino is the basic building block of all matter, something unproved and, thus far, unprovable, because we cannot duplicate the conditions immediately following the Big Bang in the laboratory.

Is he right? No one knows yet, but for 99¢, the book is worth it to me.

And this means that has made me wealthier: I don’t consider the 99¢ to be a waste, and I saved something on the order of $20.50, as described above, on buying the book the old fashioned way.

You can buy the Android Tablet that I use for just $50.99, either through the image at the left, or the same one embedded in the sidebar, and I’ll make a whopping $2.04 commission. There are other Kindle readers available on the sidebar. But you don’t have to buy only those products I have advertised for me to get a commission: just use the small search widget which links to my amazon associates account, in the sidebar or at the bottom of this article, and anything you buy through that helps me out! :)

I think that the Kindle technology is absolutely great. Our family has three Kindles — one for my wife and each daughter — plus my Tablet, and any book that any of us buys is available on each of the units. My darling bride has a Kindle Fire, like the one at the right, which has alighted screen — standard Kindles do not — which means that she can read in bed with the light off.

Yeah, I’m a greedy capitalist pig, who likes making money, and likes saving money, so all of these links lead back to my commission account. But even if you never buy through any of those links, Kindle technology is a great thing: it saves you money, because Kindle books are (normally) a lot less expensive than printed books, it’s green technology, in that we aren’t using paper and ink to print the books, and not spending gasoline to go to the bookstore to get them, and it doesn’t take up much space: there are whole bookcases full of books on my android tablet, which is slightly smaller than a loose-leaf binder, and only an inch thick, in its padded cover. The rest of the family’s Kindles are smaller than that. Nor are books and Kindles and tablets the only things you can buy on Amazon: you can buy table saws and televisions and topcoats there, too.

Technology is making us wealthier, and, as a good capitalist, I certainly support that!

Book Review – The Martian

This is the first book review I’ve written in a while, in fact, probably the first one I’ve written since Dana started this new site.

Anyway, the book in question is called “The Martian” and it’s one of the best books I’ve read in a long time. Or, let me put it this way. If you liked the movie “Gravity” and thought it was packed with suspense, well, this is at least 5 times better. The premise is the same; an astronaut is abandoned in space and has to find a way back to Earth and safety, except in “Gravity” that astronaut (played by Sandra Bullock) is in low Earth orbit and needs only to get to a nearby space station with a working capsule that can get her to the surface, only a couple hundred miles below her.

In contrast, in “The Martian”, our hero is also stranded, except he’s stranded alone on Mars, which is tens of millions of miles away. Thus his job of both surviving and finding a way to get back to Earth is far more daunting. Without giving away too much of the plot, he needs to use what materials are at hand to maintain a stable, breathable air supply, produce additional food, re-establish contact with NASA, and finally, of course, get off this God-forsaken freezing hellhole desert of a planet which he quickly grows to loathe with a passion, not least because it keeps coming up with new and often unexpected ways of trying to kill him.

A great part of the delight of the book is the ingenuity he shows in trying to accomplish this basic mission, and the resourcefulness displayed in coping with the various catastrophes that come his way. Perhaps the best is his solution to the problem of re-establishing radio contact with Earth, an idea so brilliant that I wouldn’t dream of spoiling it by describing it here. The author clearly has a very solid grasp of space travel technology and a vivid imagination for coming up with new, scary ( yet realistic and believable) plot twists as well as ways for his hero, Mark Watney, to work his way around them. But in addition to all that is the terrific sense of humor, something that is often lacking in Sci-Fi. It is, in fact, what gives Watney a very individualized and distinct personality, something that is also often lacking in this genre. A few such examples are:

“And hey, with the rover righted, I get to use the bathroom again. It’s the simple things in life that matter.”

“If I could have anything, it would be a radio to ask NASA the safe path down the Ramp. Well, if I could have *anything*, it would be for the green skinned yet beautiful Queen of Mars to rescue me so she can learn more about this Earth thing called lovemaking. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a woman. Just sayin’ ”

“If I get back to Earth, I’ll be famous, right? A fearless astronaut who beat all the odds, right? I bet women like that. More motivation to stay alive.”

Anyway, just an amazing read all the way around, even if you’re not a big Sci-Fi fan. Eric says – check it out!

A Cloward-Piven Look At The Sieve Called The US-Mexican Border

The more I watch and read of the Children’s Border Invasion in the SW, the more I see an Obama activated Cloward-Piven Strategy. The strategy is in the Immigration Bill (not stated directly) and it’s very present and very much in view in the Children’s Invasion and the $3.7B “Emergency Child Invasion Pay for it But Keep The Border Open Bill.” Obama is staying aloof from this on purpose. He is trying desparately to get the Republicans to claim it. Fortunately, our RINOs are tasting the bait, but haven’t been hooked.

Now Obama’s-Cloward-Piven strategy is simple. Look at the current laws that OTM’s (Other Than Mexicans)(or Canadians) they get to stay and await deportations. Canadians and Mexicans can be shown the door immediately.

Circumstantial evidence does show the Maladministration’s fingerprints are all over this if a few other posts on this site. They knew it and prepared for it, they just didn’t tell us and are acting surprised. The only thing not said was “Oh, I just saw that on the news.”

Where Obama-Cloward-Piven comes in is flood and overwhelm the system. The real Cloward-Piven Strategy is to bankrupt the country by being baby-sitters. Since the Border-Patrol (an Oxymoron lately) is busy changing diapers and such (they had an emergency buy of 45,000 dozen pairs of tube socks) it shows what they do now. The Maladinistration is now advertising for families to take in a refugee kid for $4,000 to $6,000 a month. (nice scam)

And lets not forget the three things the Obama-Cloward-Piven strategy is doing: One old diseases once thought were gone, are back, and Two, who else like ISIS is sneaking in also while the Borderless Patrol is up to it in diaper shit. And how much have imported drugs increased?

Obama may be coming off looking inept, but have you checked what’s left in your pockets with this well planned scam is digging deeper.

The following is from Wikipedia:
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.

The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party-then splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national “solution” to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national “solution” to poverty)

This is Wikipedia, but every source has the same message – OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM

Rule 5 Blogging: When the Palestinians attack, Israel gives it back, 100 fold!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Yael Goldman in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

I wasn’t planning on returning to Israel Defense Force women so soon, but with the idiotic Palestinians picking yet another fight that they cannot win — though they think they can win the propaganda battle by showing the bodies of children killed by the Israeli response to their attacks — I figured it was time! Right now, the IDF is simply shooting back, but some Israeli women are combat soldiers, and if the situation escalates, might have to serve on he front lines as the IDF once again has to crush the Palestinians.

If the Israelis had been real conquerors, they’d have expelled every single Arab from Gaza, Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War in 1967. It would have been harsh and it would have been cruel and it would have been terrible, but if they had done what they should have done, when they should have done it, there would be no Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, Israel would have shortened, more defensible borders, and we wouldn’t be seeing this seemingly everlasting crisis.

משק”י חילוץ והצלה של פיקוד העורף במקום פגיעת הקאסם במתנ”ס המקומי. לא היו נפגעים מהפגיעה, בתמונה רננה נצר ממושב דקל מקורס משק”י חילוץ והצלה של פקע”ר מטפלת בזירת פגיעת הקאסם.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: When the Palestinians attack, Israel gives it back, 100 fold!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

On the Victory Girls, Cassy Fiano is shocked, shocked! — OK, not really! — that the Democrats are using racial stereotypes to attack any black Americans who happen to differ from the Official Black Thought List. Of course, we’ve said it many times before: for the American left, only white men are given credit for enough intellectual ability to think for themselves.

Sister Toldjah noted Nancy Pelosi’s idiocy concerning the Hobby Lobby case.

Donald Douglas tells us about a funny thing happening on the way to the election: immigration reform fizzles as campaign issue for Democrats. He also noted that an IBD/TIPP poll found that 60% of Americans believe that the illegals should be deported.

Hube spotted more British idiocy.

There’s still nothing new on Bridging the Gap.

L D Jackson mocked President Obama’s and the White House’s claim that Mahmoud Abbas is a reliable partner for peace.

Karen, the Lonely Conservative, pointed out that the government of Qatar is a major donor to both the Clinton Foundation and the terrorist group Hamas. Yeah, I’m really surprised by that.

William Teach tells us that the World Meteorological Organisation says it’s time to shift climate baselines because global warming is increasingly setting a new “normal” for weather conditions. Mr Teach noted that “This might not work out too well for them, since there has been a pause going on since 1996, roughly half of the time period. Hurricane activity, wildfires, and tornadoes, among others, have been dropping to historical lows.”

Patterico writes about separating potential allies from the enemy.

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain pimps Wombat-socho’s new book. I still think that he should increase Wombat’s weekly gruel ration!

On Powerline, Paul Mirengoff told us about Governor Rick Perry’s (R-TX) presidential-appearing moment concerning the border crisis. From his record alone, Governor Perry should not only be the next President, but should have been since January 20, 2013. Alas! The hard lesson is that what it takes to be a good President and what it takes to be a good presidential candidate are two very different things. Barack Hussein Obama has proved that he is an absolutely excellent presidential candidate, despite being the worst actual President in my lifetime.

Finally, on Truth Before Dishonor, John Hitchcock noted a failed peer review process.

Premeditated Invasion -Revised and Updated Again

A move up:
I moved this up since the Press, mostly FOX, is seeing this Invasion for what it is. Flood the US with Illegals and claim a humanitarian crisis. This is what it is on its face, a Progressive Attack to bring the US down. As I read, 50,000 kids one day and did not gather on their own to move North. Now Nancy Progressive Communist Peelousy is saying we must absorb these somewhat disease ridden kids and embrace them. That is if you have had all your shots.

The Central American Children Invasion was Premeditated by the Obama MalAdministration

Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children – Federal Business Opportunity or FED BIZ OP

This was ISSUED in January, 29, 2014 The anticipated release date of the solicitation is March 3, 2014. The solicitation closing date will be thirty (30) days after release of the Request for Proposal (RFP).
Part of this Reads:

A. Introduction
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has a continuing and mission critical responsibility for accepting custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) from U.S. Border Patrol and other Federal agencies and transporting these juveniles to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States. ICE is seeking the services of a responsible vendor that shares the philosophy of treating all UAC with dignity and respect, while adhering to standard operating procedures and policies that allow for an effective, efficient, and incident free transport. The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air. Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier), property inventory, providing juveniles with meals, drafting reports, generating transport documents, maintaining/stocking daily supplies, providing and issuing clothing as needed, coordinating with DHS and HHS staff, travel coordination, limited stationary guard services to accommodate for trip disruptions due to inclement weather, faulty equipment, or other exigent circumstances. In emergency situations, the Contractor shall be called on to provide temporary shelter locations (such as trailers) with shower facilities for juveniles who are pending placement with HHS when bed space is unavailable nationwide for extended periods of time. The Contractor shall provide temporary guard services and other support as necessary during these emergencies.
In addition, the Contractor shall have personnel who are able to communicate with juveniles in their own designated language(s). While this may not require each employee to be fluent in all of the encountered languages, personnel should have access to and knowledge of translation services.

All of this is at the address above.

A few other articles have popped up. This is particularly interesting. Obama-Cloward-Piven at its worst

EVIL PLOT EXPOSED: Obama Bankrolled Catholic And Baptist Churches From 2010 To 2013 To Prepare For His Planned 2014 Illegal Alien Youth Invasion

“Obama can suck it!”

I stopped to get my morning Philadelphia Inquirer, when the cashier stood up from behind the counter, and said, “Ouch!” Her knee had popped, and it hurt. After a bit of conversation, she said that she couldn’t get knee surgery because she doesn’t have health insurance.

“But President Obama said that you have to have health insurance,” I responded.

To which she responded, “Obama can suck it!”

Now, she’s fairly young, probably in her late twenties, and working at a minimum wage or near minimum wage job. Supposedly, she’s the one Obaminablecare is supposed to help, but her attitude is as she expressed it.

I think that says volumes.