CORRECTION:

An earlier version of this article confused two different California professors named Christine Ford and featured student evaluations of the other Professor Christine Ford.  American Thinker apologizes to Professor Christine Ford and to readers for the error.  A revised version of the piece follows:

It’s true that Bill Clinton’s liberal ’90s apologists justified his sexual misconduct with the claim “character doesn’t matter.”  It nonetheless does, and since Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hopes are being influenced by accusations that may speak to his character, it’s only fair to examine the character of his accuser.  And this woman, Palo Alto University psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, is a radical social justice warrior.

Ford’s accusation goes back to her high school days, in approximately 1982, when she would have been 15 and Kavanaugh 17.  She claims that Kavanaugh lay on top of her and groped her while heavily intoxicated and that the incident ended when a friend of his, Mark Judge, jumped on both of them, sending them all tumbling (you can read a more thorough account here).

Whatever the truth of the matter, however, certainly true is that Ford is a radical leftist who’d be inclined to zealously oppose a Kavanaugh nomination.  For example, Breitbart reports that she not only has attended anti-Trump events, but actually donned a pink “brain p—- hat” for a 2017 anti-Trump march.

Breitbart also reports, in a different piece, that Ford was party to an ACLU letter opposing President Trump’s border enforcement efforts.  She signed it as Christine Blasey, Ph.D. Psychologist, rubber-stamping “statements that accused Trump of using southern border enforcement to ‘traumatize children’ and claimed the Zero Tolerance policy was ‘violating fundamental human rights,'” writes the news organ.

Moreover, Bookworm Room points out something interesting.  Ford didn’t mention her allegation against Kavanaugh until 2012-13.  Why is this significant?

Because when it appeared as if GOP nominee Mitt Romney might win that year’s presidential election, liberal pundits “stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare,” reports Bookworm. 

So is Kavanaugh’s conservatism the real motivation for Ford’s curiously timed allegation?  Perhaps.  And even if her claims are true, I very much doubt she’d have come forward were Kavanaugh a leftist reprobate in the mold of Slick Willie or Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy.  For a good example of such situational sexual mores, note that liberal reporter Nina Burleigh actually said in 1998 about B. Clinton, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

As for Kavanaugh, unless it’s shown that he’s like Clinton and Kennedy and has exhibited a pattern of sexual wrongdoing, there’s nothing to see here.  Ford claims that the 36-year-old alleged incident of sexual misconduct took place in a room with only her and the two boys present.  So while 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have come forward to vouch for his character as a gentleman, Ford’s lone word is the only claim against him.  It’s not “he said, she said” but, at least right now, “she said – and he and everyone else said.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

CORRECTION:

An earlier version of this article confused two different California professors named Christine Ford and featured student evaluations of the other Professor Christine Ford.  American Thinker apologizes to Professor Christine Ford and to readers for the error.  A revised version of the piece follows:

It’s true that Bill Clinton’s liberal ’90s apologists justified his sexual misconduct with the claim “character doesn’t matter.”  It nonetheless does, and since Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hopes are being influenced by accusations that may speak to his character, it’s only fair to examine the character of his accuser.  And this woman, Palo Alto University psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford, is a radical social justice warrior.

Ford’s accusation goes back to her high school days, in approximately 1982, when she would have been 15 and Kavanaugh 17.  She claims that Kavanaugh lay on top of her and groped her while heavily intoxicated and that the incident ended when a friend of his, Mark Judge, jumped on both of them, sending them all tumbling (you can read a more thorough account here).

Whatever the truth of the matter, however, certainly true is that Ford is a radical leftist who’d be inclined to zealously oppose a Kavanaugh nomination.  For example, Breitbart reports that she not only has attended anti-Trump events, but actually donned a pink “brain p—- hat” for a 2017 anti-Trump march.

Breitbart also reports, in a different piece, that Ford was party to an ACLU letter opposing President Trump’s border enforcement efforts.  She signed it as Christine Blasey, Ph.D. Psychologist, rubber-stamping “statements that accused Trump of using southern border enforcement to ‘traumatize children’ and claimed the Zero Tolerance policy was ‘violating fundamental human rights,'” writes the news organ.

Moreover, Bookworm Room points out something interesting.  Ford didn’t mention her allegation against Kavanaugh until 2012-13.  Why is this significant?

Because when it appeared as if GOP nominee Mitt Romney might win that year’s presidential election, liberal pundits “stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare,” reports Bookworm. 

So is Kavanaugh’s conservatism the real motivation for Ford’s curiously timed allegation?  Perhaps.  And even if her claims are true, I very much doubt she’d have come forward were Kavanaugh a leftist reprobate in the mold of Slick Willie or Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy.  For a good example of such situational sexual mores, note that liberal reporter Nina Burleigh actually said in 1998 about B. Clinton, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

As for Kavanaugh, unless it’s shown that he’s like Clinton and Kennedy and has exhibited a pattern of sexual wrongdoing, there’s nothing to see here.  Ford claims that the 36-year-old alleged incident of sexual misconduct took place in a room with only her and the two boys present.  So while 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have come forward to vouch for his character as a gentleman, Ford’s lone word is the only claim against him.  It’s not “he said, she said” but, at least right now, “she said – and he and everyone else said.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Bookworm has noticed an odd coincidence: after telling no one her story about the alleged incident for decades, she suddenly remembered and spoke about it in couples’ therapy in 2012, when leftists perceived the possibility that Mitt Romney, ahead in the polls, would win the presidency and appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  She writes:

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama.  Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well.  He actually had a shot of winning.

For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court.  With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:

https://t.co/hxaYqQfPI0 March 2012, the left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article

— Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018

I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website.  The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret [sic] Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court.  According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare[.] …

 Just pay attention to that last paragraph:

If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare.  And in 2012, Ford…suddenly can’t stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.

It certainly is an odd coincidence.

Bookworm has noticed an odd coincidence: after telling no one her story about the alleged incident for decades, she suddenly remembered and spoke about it in couples’ therapy in 2012, when leftists perceived the possibility that Mitt Romney, ahead in the polls, would win the presidency and appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  She writes:

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama.  Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well.  He actually had a shot of winning.

For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court.  With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:

https://t.co/hxaYqQfPI0 March 2012, the left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article

— Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018

I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website.  The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret [sic] Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court.  According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare[.] …

 Just pay attention to that last paragraph:

If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare.  And in 2012, Ford…suddenly can’t stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.

It certainly is an odd coincidence.

The French art school Emile Cohl was looking to make a splash in the United States while preparing to open a new campus in California, but a group photo of its students that was apparently manipulated for an advertising campaign to make the school look more diverse is getting it a poor grade from the get-go.

Some students’ complexions were darkened while others were simply cut out and replaced with pictures of darker-skinned people.

According to CNN, the picture was posted on Sept. 5 as part of the school’s new American version of its website, which has been in production ahead of a branch of the Lyon, France-based school opening in Los Angeles in the next few years.

It was students from the school who first noticed that their classmates had been given new looks. Students notified school officials and the picture was immediately removed.

A student posted a comparison of the school’s now-removed photoshopped image (right) with a picture that shows the actual students (left).

TRENDING: James Woods Pulls Out Dictionary To Bury Leftists Attacking Kavanaugh

La photo de base est trouvable sur leur twitter en plus, mon dieu pic.twitter.com/HzF9PVUghe

— Ameliabrador (@ameliabrador) September 9, 2018

(According to a Google translation, the first tweet states that the user is passing on the picture on behalf of a friend who wanted to remain anonymous. The second reads: “The basic photo can be found on their twitter plus, my god”)

Along with the edits to the students’ skin color, some pictures of black people were just digitally added to the crowd.

Emmanuel Perrier, the school’s assistant director, told CNN that the school had no knowledge of the editing. He claimed that an ad agency hired to promote the school in the U.S was responsible for the change and that the agency had taken the initiative to “diversify” the picture on its own.

Part of the plan for the school’s U.S promotion was to bid for funding from American-located animation studios.

One wonders who exactly thought this was a good idea and ethical idea. For example, on what grounds did they justify and choose which students should be altered?

This is an especially insane take on multicultural inclusiveness. It speaks to the state of political correctness that an ad agency would even consider this offensive idea of forced and faked diversity to be a selling point for the school.

“When the website was made public, we didn’t notice anything. The students from our school were the first ones to notice it,” Perrier told CNN.

“The communication company decided on its own to darken the skin of some students to add diversity,” he said.

RELATED: #SheToo Posters Popping up After #MeToo Icon Accused of Sex Assault

School officials wrote in a statement on its French website that they absolutely disapprove of the doctored image.

“To the Cohliens, their families, alumni, partners who know the school and its practices, we reaffirm that we do not need to manipulate images to demonstrate our openness to the world as it is,” the statement says, as translated by the New York Post.

According to the Post, a school official stated that the unidentified publicity agency has since been fired.  The American website for the school has also been taken down.

The responsible ad agency has not offered any insight into why the photo was altered.

Evidently, something was lost in translation.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

A teenage girl is being hailed as a hero after her excellent marksmanship with a bow-and-arrow saved her brother from a cougar, Fox News reports.

Amaya Simpson, a Colville, Washington 16-year-old, told Fox News that the incident occurred when she and her young brother were out practicing elk calls on the evening of September 8 in nearby Inchelium.

As they were walking along, the teen says she sensed danger. It was only three yards away from her brother — a cougar.

“I just remember getting chills, turning around, and seeing only its big brown head blending with the trees and bushes,” she told reporters, “then telling my brother to run to me.”

TRENDING: James Woods Pulls Out Dictionary To Bury Leftists Attacking Kavanaugh

Simpson said it was like the cougar was almost stalking her brother. But at first, he didn’t believe her.

“I just smiled for a second and thought she was joking around on me again,” her brother Cole said, according to KHQ-TV. However, he says he realized “the seriousness in her tone,” according to the station.

As her brother ran toward her, Amaya went all “Hunger Games” and picked up a bow and arrow. She hit the cougar behind one of its ears, getting the animal to run away.

“My adrenaline was pumping, and in that situation, it was probably record time,” she said of the arrow shot.

When she told her father what happened, he got his AR-15 and the family dog.

“We had our dogs, and our airedale got on it’s trail,” she said.

He then tracked the cougar and finished it off. According to KHQ, the father was worried that the cougar might strike again.

The big cat now resides with a taxidermist, where it will become a sort of memento for the Simpson family.

RELATED: Concealed-Carry Hero Swoops in After Police Officer Is Shot 4 Times

There are several lessons here, of course. The first is that outdoor skills can save your life, or the life of someone close to you — in this case young Cole.

The second is that if you’re going to be an outdoorsy family, you need to know how to protect yourself. That includes skills in archery, marksmanship and the like.

Oh, and yes, there’s always the delightful addendum that the AR-15, so often vilified in the press as having no application aside from being (ugh) “a weapon of war,” may well have saved the life of someone else. This is what modern hunting rifles are used for — modern hunting applications. No doubt the left is going to seize upon her for that.

Aside from all of that, however, we have to give plaudits to the brilliant Amaya Simpson, who helped save her brother’s life with one great shot.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Lisa Page, the FBI former lawyer who came under fire for an illicit extramarital affair with the now-ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok, as well as damning anti-Trump text messages leading up to the 2016 election, gave a deposition in mid-July as part of a joint congressional investigation into how the Justice Department handled the Russia and Clinton email probes.

According to Fox News, a transcript of the deposition confirmed what many already assumed about the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion.

“I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” Page said regarding whether or not there was Russian collusion.

May 2017 is when Mueller was officially appointed special counsel to investigate alleged Russian collussion.

And the result of that investigation thus far is was what millions of Americans already had a sneaking suspicion about.

TRENDING: James Woods Pulls Out Dictionary To Bury Leftists Attacking Kavanaugh

There was nothing in May 2017. There’s been nothing that’s become public more than a year after that. And if the Mueller investigation continues the way that it has been going, there will be nothing.

Page, for her part, seemed nervous about the entire deposition.

“Sorry. Can I consult with counsel? I’m sorry. I need to consult with FBI counsel for a moment,” she said in mid-answer at one point, according to Fox.

When Fox asked Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, who was one of the many people questioning Page, about her response, Ratcliffe also echoed that the Mueller investigation seemed to be a nothing burger.

“I cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview,” Ratcliffe told Fox.

And Ratcliffe didn’t. But he did, however, reaffirm Page’s seeming admission that there had been no Russian collusion.

“But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year.”

Another text message, from Strzok to Page, also seemed to imply that even the anti-Trump Strzok doubted there being any collusion.

“(You) and I both know the odds are nothing,” Strzok wrote, accordign to Fox News. “If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

RELATED: Texas State Board of Education Votes To Erase Hillary Clinton From History Curriculum

When pressed about that particular message and whether or not Strzok actually believed there was “no big there,” Page seemed to trip over her own words while trying to provide an answer.

“No, I don’t think so. I think it’s a reflection of us still not knowing…It still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing, probably not nothing nothing, as we probably knew more than that by that point,” Page said, according to Fox.

“But in the scheme of the possible outcomes, the most serious one obviously being crimes serious enough to warrant impeachment; but on the other scale that, you know, maybe an unwitting person was, in fact, involved in the release of information, but it didn’t ultimately touch any senior, you know, people in the administration or on the campaign. And so the text just sort of reflects that spectrum.”

What an utter waste of time and resources.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

I’ve always been stunned that Donald Trump is the first president the media’s called a narcissist. Without opining on whether or not our 45th head of state is obsessed with himself, I can say with absolute certainty that our 44th president definitely was.

Barack Obama loves him some Barack Obama. We saw this numerous times during his presidency, including most odiously at a memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers which the president turned into an advertisement for himself.

The former president is back on the campaign trail, and he’s not missing any opportunities to talk about his favorite subject.

Take a speech in Cleveland, where the president mentioned himself repeatedly. He also had an odd habit of stuttering — something the American Mirror noticed when they put together a video of the president’s remarks.

Obama was in Ohio in support of Richard Cordray, the Democrats’ candidate for governor there, as well as lieutenant governor candidate Betty Sutton.

TRENDING: James Woods Pulls Out Dictionary To Bury Leftists Attacking Kavanaugh

“Let, let, let, let, let me just say these, these are friends of mine,” Obama told the audience of Cordray and Sutton. “I admit I am biased.”

Well, okay, fair enough. Everyone is entitled to mention themselves once or twice during a speech, particularly if they’ve been president.

However, he kept on saying that they were both a “friend of mine” and that “I have worked with them.”

Of Cordray, he noted that the candidate “had my back even when some of you couldn’t pronounce my name.”

Yep, we’re still going with that quip in 2018. I understand that Obama’s a dad, but that doesn’t give him a pass on constantly making culturally loaded dad jokes.

Hecklers, too, were about him: “I always miss having at least one heckler up in here,” he said. “I can never really hear what they’re saying, but I appreciate the exercise of free speech.”

And in the “truer words were never spoken” category: “I know that sometimes, when I was president, even when I was a candidate, folks would say, ‘Barack, you’re talking too long.’

‘You’re like too professorial, you’re explaining stuff too much,’” he said. I think that was the excuse they may have given him, but that probably wasn’t the reason that he was being called out for talking too long.

RELATED: Donald Trump Jr. Takes Direct Shot at Obama – ‘He’s Our Best Salesman’

The real answer probably has to do with how often Obama likes to pontificate on himself. As the American Mirror pointed out about the stuttering Cleveland address, “Obama talked about himself 79 times during the roughly 40 minute speech, saying ‘I’ 66 times, ‘Me’ 5 times, ‘My’ 5 times, and ‘Mine’ 3 times.”

That sounds about right. During his big speech at the University of Illinois, he mentioned himself over 100 times during the 64-minute address. At least that time, he was accepting an award dedicated to him. This time he was actually campaigning for other candidates. When you’re doing that, it helps if the focus is on them. It also helps if you don’t stammer through it.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Earlier in the week democrats tried some more of their dirty tactics to block the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. California Senator Dianne Feinstein handed over a mysterious letter to the FBI that alleged Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a woman 35 years ago. Initially the accuser wanted to remain anonymous, but now she has a name. She also has a political party and, surprise surprise, she’s a registered democrat who donates to “political organizations.” What are the chances?

Christine Blasey Ford is a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and she claims that way back in the 1980’s Kavanaugh and a friend sexually assaulted her at a party. She spoke to The Washington Post, but they have a shitty business model and her interview is behind a paywall. Luckily this information is available everywhere else, so the WaPO can suck it. Here’s what Fox News reports:

Ford, a 51-year-old registered Democrat who has published in academic journals and has trained students in clinical psychology, described the alleged incident in The Washington Post on Sunday, saying it occurred during a summer day in the 1980s at a Maryland house where teens had gathered. Ford claimed she headed upstairs to a bathroom when she was suddenly pushed onto a bed, as rock-and-roll music blared.

However, Ford told The Post she did not recall exactly who owned the house, how she came to be at the house, or how the gathering was arranged. She remembered only that the house was in Montgomery County, near a country club, and that parents were not present.

It seems like this story that was sat on until the eve of Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote is suffering from some credibility issues, but it gets even harder to believe:

Ford said Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, were “stumbling drunk” and laughing “maniacally” when Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to forcibly remove her one-piece bathing suit, as well as the clothes she was wearing. According to Ford, Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing,” said Ford.

Ford claimed she was able to escape to a bathroom and then outside of the house when Judge jumped into the fray and sent everyone in the room “tumbling.”

To recap: Ford went to a house for reasons she can’t explain and doesn’t even know where it was or how she got there. She was wearing a bathing suit underneath her clothes for some other unexplained reason. She says Kavanaugh tried to rape and kill her, but she was saved when the friend jumped on them, sending her tumbling to the safety of a bathroom. That’s not even a decent lie for a 3-year-old trying to explain how all the cookies disappeared from the jar.

Another thing that’s kind of hard to believe is that the democrats, who are desperately trying to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, had this allegation for weeks and said nothing of it. Feinstein received the letter detailing this bullshit story before the confirmation hearings and never brought it up. Democrats on the Seante Judiciary Committee saw the letter and didn’t say a thing. Democrats grilled Kavanaugh in the hearings, met with him privately, and submitted hundreds of written questions, and yet this allegation never came up once. It’s like even the democrats know this is a load of crap so they decided to release in a damaging way that doesn’t put them on the spot for pushing a lie.

As you can see, Ford is democrat and a professor at a liberal university. Mediaite also describes her as, “A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations.”

How small? Which political organizations? I bet it’s more than just a little and chances are these are all lefty organizations. It would be seriously non-shocking if she was a major donor to Planned Parenthood. The nation’s largest abortion provider has been leading the misinformation campaign against Kavanaugh and I think it would relevant if this accuser has donated money to Planned Parenthood, don’t you?

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter