It's pitiful, really, how shameless some will be, when it comes to the war of ideas. Truth and clarity are often secondary considerations, when it comes to obtaining funds and winning hearts and minds. For example:

To be considered “hungry” in America, you must miss at least….one meal a month. That’s right, that’s the standard; one meal in 30 days, to be considered “hungry” by the Dept. of Health and Human Resources.

By that criterion, I’m starving to death, and I’m about 40 pounds overweight.

This obviously leaves light-years of leeway for agenda-driven, deep-pocketed lobbyists and advocacy groups, and for the hypocritical politicians who take their money and vote their way, pounding the podium in bogus outrage, demanding that ever more of your money be allotted to combat the awful, shameful problem of widespread hunger in America. The Children (always a good tool for pulling at the heart--and purse--strings) are going to bed hungry!

One meal. 30 days. This is liberal hypocrisy.

A similar skewing of statistics is used to magnify the homelessness issue. Are Americans homeless mostly because of their economic difficulties?

No; there are people, homeless due to the present crisis, yes. There are even tent settlements in some cities. It’s sad; but, according to studies, most Americans who do become homeless due to economic circumstances are homeless for only relatively short periods, before recovering.

The vast majorities of homeless Americans are homeless due to being mentally ill and refusing treatment, are alcoholics, drug addicts and/or other societal castoffs refusing the effort, dignity and responsibility of getting clean and living right.

It’s much easier, it seems, to be a victim (which their liberal advocates soothingly tell them they are, anyway, so they can continue using them as ATMs) and live on the street, simply letting charities and the government take care of you and pay for your habits.

Please understand: I don’t deny that there is, indeed, hunger and poverty in America. But I’m skeptical.

Advocates often make no--verbal--distinction between levels of hunger and poverty in say, Africa, and in America.

You must understand the levels to which information is manipulated.

Witness the recent study, which found that divorce, crime and violence among Iraq war vets is skyrocketing. This was reported, however, without pointing out that it’s actually much lower, when compared to the rest of the population of young people, of roughly the same age.

For 40 years, they’ve used those exact same methods to impugn Vietnam veterans. Statistically, unemployment, drug abuse, violence and other examples of social dysfunction were found to be much lower among Vietnam vets, as compared to others of the same age groups.

In other words, the vet’s experiences--both in Iraq and Vietnam--overall, actually made them better, more responsible citizens. It's just that the liberals in the media don't report it that way; the image of the crazy, emotionally unstable Vietnam (and Iraq war) vet was a much better conduit than the truth, for undermining American patriotism and public support for the war, as well as military morale.

Go figure.

Now, there are people on here who will doubtlessly soon be accusing me of the same kinds of things I decry in this article. And yes, I’m sure conservatives, too, engage in manipulation of data, from time to time.

But, truthfully, the skewing of information usually seems to favor issues and ideals favored by liberals. Resultantly, emotions, perceptions, and bank accounts are more often influenced in that direction, as well.

There is no problem, no issue, which cannot be made to seem infinitely worse, by a liberal with a hidden agenda.

Sometimes, things really are as uncomplicated as they seem.