"Truth...What A Concept!!"

New theme on an old joke... Do you know how you can tell if Hillary Clinton is lying? Simple, her lips are moving!

Liars can generally be classified into three distinct groups: the "born" liar, the "avoid trouble" liar, and the "protector" liar." The "protector" liar is an individual who consciously elects not to reveal a truth in an effort to avoid causing emotional pain to someone he or she cares about. This type of liar isn't indicative of the individual possessing a character flaw and is usually accompanied by feelings of guilt for having resorted to this behavior. The "avoid trouble" liar is similar to the "protector" liar in that both wish to minimize conflict. The difference is that the first wishes sincerely to protect another, while the second wishes to protect themselves, usually because he or she has consistently and historically failed to perform some function or fulfill some agreed upon promised task. Example: "The dog ate my homework." If this type of behavior persist it may be assumed that the individual is prompted to do so as a result of some personal character flaw brought on by such exterior stimuli as stress or a low appraisal of one's self esteem.

The most exasperating type of prevaricator is the "born" liar. If it suits their purposes these individuals would tell you without squinting an eye that the sun comes up in the west. When incontrovertible proof is presented to the contrary these individuals will combat the allegation with any number of excuses, none of which speak to the fact that they have been anything but truthful. In other words...if the dog didn't eat their homework, it wasn't because the dog didn't have ever opportunity to do so. Your issue is the missing home work. Their issue is any but the missing homework. A lie, to them, is so much more preferable than the truth when a lie of any magnitude best suits their purposes. If this type of behavior isn't indicative of a character flaw then perhaps the sun does indeed ascend in the west!

So, dear hearts, where might we classify Hillary Rodam Clinton within the three types of liars? Her latest dalliance with the truth came just the other day when she proclaimed that when she and her entourage landed in Bosnia in 1996 they had to "run" to the waiting vehicles because they were being fired upon by snipers. Makes for an interesting story...if it were true. The sun had not touched the western horizon before a host of media sources - replete with video film taken on that particular date in Hillary's clouded memory - unequivocally illustrated that the only danger she faced would have been a possible allergic reaction to the bouquet of flowers that was presented to her in a gesture of welcome by a very sweet and smiling little girl. When confronted with the preponderance of evidence that her statements were totally ungrounded in fact, Hillary retorted nonchalantly that she had merely "misspoken." The dog really didn't eat my homework, but I thought it did. Let's have a show of hands here guys. If you had been subject to firearm attack, don't you think you would remember the incident with crystal clarity? Apparently the world in which Hillary mentally travels must have a totally different hue than the rest of we mortals experience.

Is Hillary a compulsory "born" liar? Past indiscretions with the truth on her part would seem to indicate a decided propensity toward that particular cavalier character flaw. Lie: Daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on September 11th. Fact: Chelsea was in bed watching the events unfold on television. Lie: Hillary was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, he of the Mount Everest fame. Fact: Sir Edmund did not first scale the world's tallest peak until five years after her birth. With very few strokes of the keyboard, one can uncover site after documented site that details the width and breath of Hillary repeatedly playing fast and lose with the truth. Why? Why not speak only the facts of any given situation...especially in incidents where the reality of the circumstances can be so easily verified? Why distort if not totally obliterate the truth? If the dog wasn't even in the room at the time why say that it was?

Some credentialed individual with a psychologist degree would better serve to answer those questions. I am not qualified. I am, however, not so naive to be personally duped into believing that Hillary's incidents of misspeaking are not indicative of an on-going pattern of behavior that I find wholly unacceptable in my dealing with other individuals and wholly abhorrent in an individual who would wish to be elected to the most powerful position of authority in the world. Who would I prefer answering a crisis phone call at 3 a.m. in the morning? Sorry Hillary, not you. If I can't trust you to speak the truth about your own daughter, then why in God's world would I trust you to deal decisively and with unwavering integrity to a situation which would require the utmost candor and strength to do the "right thing." Of course we could always leave it up to Bill to take those pesky phone calls...he of "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman!" Right...it was the dog's fault.

Is it time for this country to elect a woman as it's Commander-In-Chief? Yes. Unequivocally, yes! But not this woman. She is not entitled to inherit the Presidency merely because she stood in the shadows of the White House and proclaimed that having done so for eight years she has by osmosis been imbued with the required experience to be President of the United States. The family's White House dog can lay claim to the same qualifying parameters. As it stands now, I'd trust the dog more than I'd ever trust Hillary. When it comes to telling the truth, I'm just funny that way.