Are the Obama's racist and elitist?
How does one separate the racism from the elitism?
The Obama's chose to send Sasha and Malia to a private elite Friends school. What is wrong with DC schools? The Carters sent Amy to the public school...it was good enough.
What is wrong with DC schools? I read about the racism, the majority black population. Aren't the DC schools good enough for the Obama daughters?
I forget.
Parents in DC used to have a choice. They had a voucher program for the little people. Vouchers gave everyday poor people an opportunity to send their children to private school. A great way to escape the problematic DC public schools.
DC schools, when Obama took office was being transformed by a 'true' reformer, Michelle Rhee. Teachers fired, on probation, held accountable...all progress halted when Obama took over. The district showed Rhee the door...
What of the reformer? Turn control to local communities? Not so fast...
A new message of elitism?
Rhee at the Democratic convention from The Atlantic:
"Both parties have to be cognizant of ensuring they don't fall prey to the special interests within their party," she says. [snip]
"One of the things Romney says in his white paper, he criticizes the Obama administration, he says we need to start to tie federal dollars to reforms. Well, that is exactly what Race to the Top did -- not only that, but that never happened in the Bush administration. The first time federal dollars have been tied to reform happened under the Obama administration."
Special interests? Big government? Why not end all Federal involvement in education? Let local communities solve their own problems?
In the end, it looks like the reformer has become the terminator of union dominance in traditional public schools. Just what the right had wanted.
But she's all for a central office tying funding to reform through a massive bureaucracy. Is this what the GOP or the Tea Party wants now?
Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/education_reformer_michelle_rhee_says_gop_shouldnt_kowtow_to_tea_party.html#ixzz26pXJzs3rIs there really any difference between union control and central control? I don't think so.
Why not let communities decide the best way to educate the children? Why should anyone dig into the pockets of working people, take money, and give it to their own cronies and special interests?
Why not keep the corruption localized? Keep big government/union hands out of everyone's pockets?
Any chance the Obama kids will go to public school? Or, will they remain with the elite Friends?
Some of the founders and earliest Americans were Quakers. Quakers were among the first to set their slaves free, seeing a conflict with slavery and ownership of other human beings. They set their slaves free despite financial losses they incurred.
Apparently, past generations took the high moral ground when it came to owning slaves. Did they make a mistake? Was it better to live off the labor of others?
The language of slavery has changed, the elite seem to have mastered the slave contract.Instead of the slave contract, there is the 'social contract'. A 'social contract' overseen by elites. Public services are good for everyone, no money is good for everyone, growing poverty is good for every one - except the racist elites.
A social contract that takes everything from working people and does nothing to chip away at trust funds, global elite corporations...the same corporations that seem to benefit from all the government borrowing and building and give nothing back...
The elite of both parties seem to think that Americans are not entitled to the fruit of their labor. All money must be confiscated from working people through taxation, regulation, and economic depravity. When you look at the elite, how many were born with a silver spoon and trust fund? Anyone applying a 110% tax to trust funds? Taking their money?
How many elites benefit from government grants? Federal Reserve bailouts and money printing?
Is it just racism? Perhaps a big fistful of elitism too?
just my humble opinions