Other examples abound, such as

      - the highly-publicized myths that the Founding Fathers were Secularists, not the Christians they themselves claimed to be.

      - the now receding myth that the Treaty of Tripoli was somehow a proof that religion must be banned from the American Experiment, when it was merely a clause trying to explain to Muslim countries that the USA, unlike all other countries of the day, had no officially supported state religion.

    “Exception becoming the rule” isn’t just for history.  Historical examples are simpler due to Americans’ lack of history education.  Modern-day examples are possible due to Americans’ lack of education in mathematics, rhetoric, & logic.  Relative Morality is truly evil, since it makes a lie or a murder (or any other evil) into a moral virtue whenever the lie/murder/etc can be arguably seen to advance an agenda.

      - NBC planting explosives in a Ford to show how nearly all Fords explode on impact (1978).  (So, a rigged-to-explode pickup is a valid expose on sparks igniting gas tanks ... how?)

      - 60 Minutes rigging visuals to show how jeeps ‘always’ roll over even at very low speeds.  (Note how the powerful visual over-emphasizes a very low statistic merely quietly mentioned in the background narrative?)

      - Diane Sawyer’s recent ‘expose’ on how being armed in a classroom (or any public venue) would get you killed, but cell phones would save lives.  (How does the following filmed play-acting prove anything?  The play-acting paintballing perpetrator enters the classroom, shoots the instructor, then somehow zeroes in on the only armed individual.  Meanwhile, the armed individual is fumbling to grip an unfamiliar paintball weapon in an unfamiliar location -- while wearing bulky gloves?  How does telling the perpetrator 'there is one armed individual' represent reality that there would probably be zero armed individuals in the room?)

I spent 20 years in uniform. In 20 years, I was betrayed. I swore an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. While I 'manned the walls', somebody let the enemies under the walls and into the courtyard: fellow countrymen have allowed internal rot to erode the force & effect of the constitution I defended. Outright betrayal.

Still, a point to amplify: betrayal from arrogance 'reaching across the aisle' to the usual liberal suspects.

As a conservative, I have a memory that I'm not afraid to use. I remember the lies & duplicities of liberals & outright admitted socialists, of 'compassionate conservatives', and of would-be conservatives who behave as if having tumbled gyroscopes for their Jiminy Crickets. Being conservative also means I believe in an immutable standard of right versus wrong, that I'm not ashamed to call a lie a lie, and that I insist all should stick to the agreed rules, like the constitution ... or leave us.

No, the 80% change I want is to take the kid gloves off against those who throw mud to see what sticks. I want to lose the politically correct veneer: the politics of personal destruction is NOT in calling a lie a lie, it's in telling the lie in the first place. Those who speak plainly, unashamed to point out the lies, those are the candidates I'm willing to vote for and support. Conservatism does this. Conservatives will send a Packwood packing just as quickly as sending away a Studds, while the liars will join against Packwood, but circle wagons around a Studds. 

Most of America doesn't give a hoot about 'partisan politics' so much as we want integrity we can trust ... integrity that forbids betrayal. ENOUGH with lies and all the rest of Relative Morality's hidden praise of duplicity!

Conservative victory, the phoenix of integrity ... we need it.

Anybody ever notice that Republican success in national elections is directly related to how conservative the Republican is???!!! ('DumbOxBellowed' blog shows details in a featured essay.)

I wish the 2008 ticket was Palin-Anybody, with a cabinet including Thompson, Gingrich, Alexander, Keyes, DeLay, Lott, Santorum, Thune, etc. (I remember how some of them were tarred & feathered, run out of DC on a rail, then exonerated. THAT is the politics of personal destruction.) No human is perfect, but a cabinet like those names would probably keep each other true to politics of service, away from politics of self-embellishing duplicity. 

On 10 Sep 2008, various folks received, from a McCain Campaign source:

          "Even before our national convention, the Obama campaign dispatched what The Wall Street Journal called a "mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers" to Alaska to dig up dirt for their personal attacks on Governor Palin and her family. FactCheck.org has called the attacks on Governor Palin, "completely false" and "misleading." However, the Obama Democrats continue to launch these attacks, hoping you'll never find out the truth."

No surprise.  Liars lie.  Seems liberals embrace Relative Morality, in which any individual is legitimate in deciding any bad deed is actually virtuous, if the bad deed advances 'the cause'.  Kind of like what some branches of Christians had decided a few centuries ago:  "the ends justify the means".  Liberals, with Relative Morality, have decided it’s virtuous to tell lies that promote liberal causes.  Seems liberals, as a group, have become habitual liars…  10 Sep 2008 was not new …

  - Most of what's not said about global warming is 'lies by omission', though there’s also plenty of both lies of commission and lies by implication. They show us the full-up Three Ring Lying Circus.  One of the leading liberal climatologists, Stephen Schneider, actually overtly and publicly encouraged lying for the sake of the agenda (and was quoted in Discover Magazine, October 1989):

          "Scientists should consider stretching the truth to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we may have.... Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest."

 - Remember also the Gore Campaign.  In December 2000, this group of liberals had a very interesting Florida campaign strategy (as reported in Washington Post and New York Times): get Gore votes into the public’s consciousness, loudly & repeatedly, even if you have to quietly take them back later; create the impression of winning.

Intentionally & loudly proclaim the lie, foster a false image. Then quietly just stop talking the lie when it’s found out. Indeed.  Liars won’t stop lying unless forced. 

That’s three ‘big campaign’ snapshots going back two decades. There’s more; it's what they get good at, whether by omission, commission, or implication.  But these three examples are big enough to suffice for a short essay. 

Lying can become an addiction.  Psychology tells us, confirming common sense and a few thousand years of theology, that some liars get so used to lying that they develop an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. We hope, however, that only the most partisan Relative Morality Liberals have developed a difficulty distinguishing lie from reality. We have a greater hope that ‘inability to distinguish’ doesn’t (yet?) afflict most Americans generally. 

Since most Americans tend to be conservative, when given the chance to assess multiple views of an issue, we have a high level of trust in both hopes.