Let’s just dispense with the grandiloquent variations, may we?
When it comes to his up close and personal relationship with Bill Ayers, Barack Obama has not just “prevaricated.” He has not merely “dissembled.” And he has been anything but an “artful dodger.”
Barack Obama has lied.
From the very first time Obama was directly asked about his relationship with Bill Ayers, he set forth a pattern of duplicity that we now know is this gifted charlatan’s stock in trade. It occurred at the Philadelphia debate preceding the Pennsylvania primary. Asked point blank by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to “explain that relationship for the voters,” Obama quickly shifted into his smug “when-are-you-dolts-going-to-learn?” persona and effortlessly rolled off a world-class deception.
Here is his response in full. Read it carefully, because provides is a case study in the seamy art of the carefully crafted lie:
“This is 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.”
Let’s take it from the top, from the first words out of Obama’s mouth: “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Kind of like Pauly the plumber. 
Or, Andy the accountant. Or in Obama’s case, Bill the bomber. Yawn. Ho hum. What’s next? Move on.
The mainstream media, of course, including the timid Stephanopoulos, accepted that effluvia as afflatus, and meekly moved on to more important matters – like whether Sarah Palin’s daughter was really the mother of the governor’s infant son.
But the truth is, we now know, of thanks to investigative reporters like National Review’s Stanley Kurtz, that Ayers was far more to Obama than some “guy who lives in my neighborhood.” We now know that the two of them were bosom buddies from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and close-knit fellow travelers along the red brick road to Marxist utopianism.
More about that later, but first let’s get back to the lie that launched the Ayers deception. Like all good liars, Obama knew not to stop with the casual disclaimer. That would be too easy to disprove. So, he threw in a red herring detail he knew would be useful, first, in establishing “mainstream” credentials for the cretin for whom he was trying to cover, and second, in sounding so innocuous as to forestall any follow-up.
To wit: “… who’s a professor of English in Chicago.” You know those professors of English: tweed jackets, leather elbow patches, khakis, loafers – the kind of guys who sit around quoting Shakespeare and splitting hairs over infinitives. Yeah, he teaches somewhere “in Chicago.” God knows where. Next question.
The truth, of course – as Barack Obama well knew – is that Bill Ayers teaches a whole lot more than English. Though he may no longer teach bomb making (even though he still refuses to rule out violence as a tool for change), this is a man who refers to himself as a “radical, leftist, small c communist.”
He is a man who journeyed down to Venezuela as Hugo Chavez guest in 2006 to teach that, “Education is the motor-force of revolution – La educacion es revolucion!.” A man who extolled anti-American Palestinian radical (and Barack Obama cohort) Edward Said, as “the best-known intellectual in the world.”
Now, the opening lie had legs. And Obama still was on a roll. He had to now produce a deceptive turn of phrase that would make it sound like he wasn’t close enough to Ayers even to garner the terrorist’s political support.
So, out pops: “… who I have not received some official endorsement from.”
Now, that’s enough to make even the most lackadaisical English prof blanch. But, leaving aside the solecism, take a good look at what kind of endorsement Obama was careful to deny. Obama knew that Ayers had endorsed every professional move he had made since their earliest days attempting to undermine the Windy City’s school system. So, Obama threw in the weasel word “official.” It implies authenticity and authority. Used as an adjective, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary informs, “official,” means “pertaining to the government, either as state employee or having state recognition, or to analogous governance, or to formal (especially legally regulated) proceeding as opposed to informal business.”
In other words, in the context of Ayer’s support for Obama’s run at the presidency of the United States, the word “official” was totally meaningless. But, it sure does sound good, doesn’t it? So good, in fact, that you just want to admire the man who warranted such weighty approbation.
Then, Obama finishes off his opening Ayers gambit with the pronouncement, “He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.”
Leaving aside the obvious question of what a “regular basis” means, the truth is: Barack Obama has exchanged ideas – of the most radical and dangerous sort – with William Ayers continually for nearly 15 years. That we know of.
Beginning in 1995, Obama and Ayers worked hand in hand at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a group co-founded by Ayers and chaired by Obama to indoctrinate Chicago’s school children. While serving as chair, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close coordination with the Collaborative, of which Ayers was the co-chair. Obama and Ayers both served on the board of the left-wing Woods Foundation. Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career with a reception in the terrorist’s own home. And Ayers was a contributor to Obama’s 2006 senatorial campaign.
So, there you have it: faced with a question about his strangest of all bedfellows – a question that he knew he would have to answer sooner or later – Obama resorted to a carefully crafted lie. It’s a convoluted lie intended to sound so unimpeachable and innocuous that anyone listening would be tempted to shrug, turn away, and talk about the weather – rather than the man.
But, it is a lie nonetheless. And it worked for a good, long while, didn’t it? Now that its deliberate duplicity has been exposed, the real question that needs to be asked is twofold: Why did Obama find it necessary to contrive such a transparent tale – and where are these two fellow-travelers intending to take the country next? Grandiloquent variations aside, that’s a question upon which a nation’s destiny may well hang.
