Christine Blasey Ford is experiencing a renewal of celebrity with her name recently emblazoned on the cover of Time magazine next to the headline: “The Next 100 Most Influential People.”

While Blasey Ford received top billing, oddly enough, she is not one of the 100 honorees. Instead, in a leftist curve ball, she’s heralded as the most prominent of the 100 "guest writers" who are cleverly matched -- in terms of the propaganda wars -- with the 100 actual honorees. In this case, Blasey Ford is paralleled with arguably the most famous and dignified rape survivor of college age, Stanford University student Chanel Miller.

Readers on one side of the political aisle may ask themselves: Do the two women truly deserve being paired together? Chanel Miller came to the attention of the nation with her powerful memoir, Know My Name, recounting her horrific experience of sexual assault by a fellow student at Stanford University. The truth of her ordeal was never in question. Now 27 years old, Miller has proven herself to be a woman of exceptional emotional intelligence. She has given survivors an emotional road map -- including a moving witness-impact statement at the trial of her rapist -- to help them find their way back from a life-shattering experience.

Blending the names of the two women effectively sanitizes the political controversy swirling around Blasey Ford’s alleged ordeal. Hence the kicker headline on the cover: “Chanel Miller by Christine Blasey Ford.”

The psychology professor can now be spared the outrage of conservatives who think of her embarrassing inconsistencies, and uncorroborated allegations as nothing more than a smear campaign against a conservative Supreme Court nominee. The professor was at the center of a media storm immediately after accusing Judge Kavanaugh of cruelly “groping” her more than 30 years ago. (There were others to come forth with allegations, but their stories ranged from wholly uncorroborated to tragically absurd: This included Kavanaugh allegedly participating in gang rapes at multiple parties.)

None of that mattered. The blitzkrieg of news coverage remained focused on Blasey Ford. Few reporters in the mainstream media had the intellectual integrity to examine the multitude of red flags undermining Blasey Ford’s charges. She appeared to be such a “credible” accuser.

Conservatives wouldn’t be surprised to learn the true heroine of the Kavanaugh saga failed to fit the leftist narrative and never made the cut for the Time’s cover article. Leland Keyser was cited as a key witness to the story by her childhood friend, Blasey Ford.

This all-important witness could have potentially corroborated Blasey Ford’s allegations because she supposedly attended the party in question.

At great personal cost, Keyser refused to give in to threats from liberals to support Blasey Ford’s claims and remained steadfast in her assertion that she couldn’t remember meeting Kavanaugh, and, even worse, claimed she didn’t find the accuser’s story credible. Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post shocked many of her colleagues by breaking from the leftist ranks and offering the following analysis: “Keyser can stand tall for having remained true to her convictions despite being exposed and pressured by those who seemed to have used her struggles (poor health) against her,” Parker wrote. “In my book, that’s heroic.”

Most editors blatantly ignored the facts that torpedoed Blasey Ford’s allegations. Why allow the truth to come between a beautifully crafted propaganda campaign and destroying Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation?

Blasey Ford’s advocates would have the public believe conservatives have seated a “sexual predator” on the Supreme Court (term often used in the media). Debra Katz, the attorney representing Blasey Ford in the non-judicial case, drove home this point in a highly politicized and shameful comment she made about Judge Kavanaugh in the aftermath of the Senate hearings.

“He will always have an asterisk next to his name,” Katz claimed. “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, (and) we know his character.”

Katz asserted her client was not motivated by politics, but rather by her acute sense of performing a public duty. The conduct of the liberal coalition supporting Blasey Ford would indicate the campaign was nothing more than a political assassination job.

Kavanaugh steadfastly denied the allegations and not one witness or even contemporaneous evidence surfaced to support Blasey Ford’s claims. That hardly puts a crimp in the leftist narrative.

Katz takes a sanctimonious overview of the proceedings and inadvertently upholds the unvarnished truth to be learned from the attacks. She says we now “know Judge Kavanaugh’s character and the public is entitled to a thorough review of Justice Kavanaugh’s record, (and) how it was before he was elevated to the Supreme Court.”

That said, he certainly did demonstrate the mettle of his character: Katz and her leftist coalition never expected Judge Kavanaugh to survive the nomination process, after landing as many stink bombs as possible in his court, but he proved himself to be a justice worthy of the seat he now occupies.