Well, honestly, how about staying or getting back on the horse that got us this far, the truth.

Its a danger to expend to much energy on any candidate. We understood just a year ago that we were our only hope. Somewhere along the way, somehow many were led to believe that a candidate could save us. What changed that part of the ideology for some of the 9/11 re-investigation community, i don't know. But i think we would be wise to:

a) readdress any significant relocated energies away from any candidate and back to getting truth and justice, helping save and improve the country and helping remove "the post-9/11" from the word world.

b) examine exactly who, if any, is the political horse(or pony?) fitting our support. Consider the following:

Mike Gravels' latest statement on 9/11, following his recent statement that it wouldn't hurt to have a new investigation, to Student Scholars for Truth:

"Gravel Supports Independent 9/11 InquiryThanks to everybody committed to the 9/11 truth movement who have forwarded us films and literature concerning 9/11. We have taken considerable amount of time to look into this issue, there is a lot of evidence to sift through. After careful consideration and much study, Senator Gravel agrees that an independent inquiry is indeed needed to get to the bottom of what happened on September 11, 2001.

Gravel 08"

Ron Paul has made several statements regarding 9/11. One of his most recent, June 28th of this year, to the Muckraker Report:

"Congressman Ron Paul: If the 9/11 families aren’t satisfied with the results of the 9/11 Commission, than neither am I. I’m in favor of an independant investigation, provided costs are kept in check."

Its been a major point of disgust amongst us, and another smoking gun, that the government limitedly funded a 9/11 investigation, far less then what was spent on the Clinton query.(Of course thats not excusing Clinton of his criminal behavior..things far greater then lying under oath about sexual activity.) Considering that, it seems contridictory to find this statement in line with the movement, even though tempting when hearing the words "if the 9/11 families aren't satisfied with the results of the 9/11 commission, neither am I". This doesn't seem to fall far from Kucinich' "narrow investigation". That, of course, will be what happens when you limit money.

Of course, on national tv, Ron Paul supported the 9/11 commission report, and then held a seminar on it. He also, upon being asked by the mainstream media, said "theres no reason to believe the government was involved".

Now the question is, if we say "Ron Paul is our candidate", and then we tell someone to investigate 9/11, and that the 9/11 commission report is a scam, aren't we contridicting ourselves and, besides the hypocricy, confusing anyone we are trying to introduce this to.

Such action i have recently seen down at The World Trade Center PATH Station, by a few, undoubtably(at least mostly) well intentioned individuals. I just don't see how we can support Paul, as well intentioned as he probably is, without him taking a stance that at least doesn't contridict our values. And perhaps its right to change horse and throw some weight behind Gravel, but i would say..let stick to throwing most of our weight behind the truth itself. Maybe a little link to Gravel on the corner of your page and a little cut of his statement wouldn't be a bad thing, though.

Come to the World Trade Center PATH Station today if you are in new york city, at 1 pm, and help spread the truth about 9/11. Also encouraged to join newyorkny911truth.org, at Union Square Park at 4:30 PM. Enjoy the day.