Howard Kurtz wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal’s Tuesday edition in which he spent some time diving into the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. When asked about the relationship in past months, Obama responded that Ayers - one a domestic, far-left terrorist, today a domestic, far-left educator and propagandist - was just “a guy living in my neighborhood.” The connection did not go any further, he said.

Kurtz’s extensive investigation shows that to be a lie, however. There was more to the relationship than Obama pretended.

Ayers set up an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. This group ‘poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists,’ Kurtz explained.

The CAC was a brainchild of Ayers. In early 1995, Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board. The other key body of the foundation was co-chaired by Ayers himself.

In order to find out whether the two had a reasonably close working relationship or not, Kurtz decided to delve into the archives of the CAC which are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The archives show that the connection between Obama and Ayers went further than Obama has been willing to admit thus far. ‘The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda,’ Kurtz writes.

The first lie the archives exposed was Obama’s campaign’s claim that Ayers was not involved in the process of appointing Obama head of the aforementioned board. In fact, Ayers ‘was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit.’ As Kurt writes: ‘No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.’

The goals of the foundation too are not exactly something Obama would like to associate himself with nowadays, yet was more than willing to associate in the 1990s. ‘The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.’

Basically, the idea of CAC was to give students the impression that they had to fight against the oppressive (white-men) government). They were indoctrinated by CAC and its partners to hate society, to consider it highly racist, and to do something about it. Ayers ‘believes teacher education programs should serve as “sites of resistance” to an oppressive system,’ and CAC was his tool to help reform schools and teachers.

The second lie exposed is that Ayers and Obama had little to no contact while the latter worked for the former’s foundation. ‘The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC’s first year. He also served on the board’s governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative,’ Kurtz summarizes.

Obama’s answers and explanations thus far on questions related to the Ayers connection has been insuffice. He has yet to truly explain his working and social relationship with Ayers. He has yet to explain why he associated so closely with a former domestic terrorist, and now a ‘radical… communist’ (in Ayers’ own words). These are questions that should be asked of Obama, a man with the ambition to become the world’s only superpower’s president. This is not, as Kurtz made clear, guilt by association, it’s guilt by action.

And that, I think, is fair.