Ayres and Obama:It's Not the Crime, It's the CoverUp

Tom Maguire pokes around a bit and discovers that Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayres are far more substantial than Obama has yet admitted to:

(1) It's not the crime, it's the cover-up - why can't Obama manage to deliver a clear answer about his relationship with Ayers?   It has long been reported that they both sat on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.  We now also know that Ayers helped found the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund, with Obama as the first Chairman of the Board.  We also know that Obama, Thomas Ayers (Bill Ayers father) and John Ayers (Bill's brother) all served on the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund (described here as "the successor" to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project).

That is a lot more of a connection than Obama has admitted in two recent appearances on national television or at his websites "Fact Check".  At the Philadelphia debate, Ayers was described as

... a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from.  He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.   

In Philadelphia, it was left to Hillary to mention the Woods Fund board overlap.

And on Fox News, Obama seemed utterly hazy as to what board he was on with Ayers, [snip]

(2) The second emerging theme in this Ayers drama is, what about shared values?  OK, so Barack was eight years old when Ayers was blowing things up.  But Ayers brings a very, hmm, progressive mindset to his educational agenda, or so I glean from the Ayers website (or this panel presentation).  So, does Barack share these views?  Seems like a fair question, since Ayers helped found a group Barack promptly chaired.

It's well-documented. Read it all.
 
Update (hat tip: Ed Lasky)

Jim Addison of Wizbangpolitics also addresses  Obama's evasions (his term)  on Ayers. He asks:

Just how many bald-faced lies is Obama to be allowed without consequence? [....]

...a clear pattern is emerging: whenever one of Obama's close associates is found to be corrupt, or anti-American, or a radical terrorist, he has minimized his relationship with that person and falsely so.

Unfortunately, so long as the media refuses to report his lies and evasions - much less take note of the pattern of deception - it really doesn't matter how many he tells, does it?
Tom Maguire pokes around a bit and discovers that Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayres are far more substantial than Obama has yet admitted to:

(1) It's not the crime, it's the cover-up - why can't Obama manage to deliver a clear answer about his relationship with Ayers?   It has long been reported that they both sat on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.  We now also know that Ayers helped found the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund, with Obama as the first Chairman of the Board.  We also know that Obama, Thomas Ayers (Bill Ayers father) and John Ayers (Bill's brother) all served on the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund (described here as "the successor" to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project).

That is a lot more of a connection than Obama has admitted in two recent appearances on national television or at his websites "Fact Check".  At the Philadelphia debate, Ayers was described as

... a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from.  He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.   

In Philadelphia, it was left to Hillary to mention the Woods Fund board overlap.

And on Fox News, Obama seemed utterly hazy as to what board he was on with Ayers, [snip]

(2) The second emerging theme in this Ayers drama is, what about shared values?  OK, so Barack was eight years old when Ayers was blowing things up.  But Ayers brings a very, hmm, progressive mindset to his educational agenda, or so I glean from the Ayers website (or this panel presentation).  So, does Barack share these views?  Seems like a fair question, since Ayers helped found a group Barack promptly chaired.

It's well-documented. Read it all.
 
Update (hat tip: Ed Lasky)

Jim Addison of Wizbangpolitics also addresses  Obama's evasions (his term)  on Ayers. He asks:

Just how many bald-faced lies is Obama to be allowed without consequence? [....]

...a clear pattern is emerging: whenever one of Obama's close associates is found to be corrupt, or anti-American, or a radical terrorist, he has minimized his relationship with that person and falsely so.

Unfortunately, so long as the media refuses to report his lies and evasions - much less take note of the pattern of deception - it really doesn't matter how many he tells, does it?