America's energy future is natural gas

Re: "Obama's destiny: Lame-duck revenge or four-year revolution?" Oct. 25

For months now, I have been telling my friends that if Obama is re-elected, the first sound you will hear is the shutting down of fracking for natural gas. So I was very pleased to read Ron Arnold's opinion piece concerning this. For our country to be strong it needs a source of cheap power, and that is natural gas.

Simply stated, this source of energy will get our country moving again. It will eventually enable the natural move away from coal. It is not necessary to irrationally shut down and abandon our coal-fired electricity plants in which we have an enormous capital investment, but instead switch over to natural gas as their fuel. As an added benefit, there will be a huge reduction in the use of oil by the rail and mining industries to transport and mine coal. This oil could be used for other transportation purposes, thereby reducing further the need for foreign oil. This would, in turn, also reduce the need for the oil used to transport oil itself to our shores.

Yes, the coal industry would see a reduction, but the coal workers affected will likely be able to participate in the pipeline and gas industries, as well as the resultant increased economic growth.

Put it in these terms: Would you rather have a coal stove in your kitchen (even with clean technology) or a gas stove which burns so cleanly inside your house that no pollution controls are necessary at all?

Mike Adelman


Romney doesn't understand war, foreign policy

Any economic recovery Romney influences will be erased by his poor understanding of national security and foreign policy. Iraq cost this country more than $4 trillion, and we lost over four thousand lives. Romney seems eager to take stronger measures with Iran and Syria, but has not clearly explained what he would do differently from President Obama. Romney's constant want of stronger measures and bigger defense budgets makes him more susceptible to Cold War-era advisers and defense lobbyists.

What is scarier is that his position on national security wavers -- the Mitt Romney of May said Russia is our No. 1 foe, but the Mitt Romney of October says it's a nuclear-armed Iran. In both cases he seems to have a shallow understanding of the issue. I recently re-read President Obama's National Security Strategy written three years ago, and it could have been written three days ago -- that's the kind of steady leadership I want in a president.

The only thing certain about Romney is that he will push for a business-friendly environment, but I'm dubious he would safeguard the middle-class American from getting steamrolled in that environment -- that is what a public servant must do.

Duane Neal

Fort Belvoir, Va.

Lack of transparency on Benghazi will hurt Obama on Election Day

Re: "Cast defends timing of bin Laden raid movie," Oct. 25. Two days before Election Day, National Geographic will air "Seal Team Six: The Raid On Osama bin Laden." We will see the concerned look on the faces of President Obama and the others in the Situation Room as they watch the live video of the operation. The point of this airing is to show how President Obama can make the tough decisions.

Why then can't we see the look on the faces of those in the Situation Room as they watched the live video of the assault on the Benghazi Consulate? The lack of that tough decision cost the lives of our U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The White House is willing to "spike the football" with Osama bin Laden, but they clearly "fumbled the football" in Benghazi on, of all days, Sept. 11.

The White House has changed the story of Benghazi for more than seven weeks. We're now told that they're investigating the tragedy and "We The People" won't know the outcome until after Election Day. Well "We The People" will take that message to the polls on Election Day. We were promised "transparency" by President Obama and we now can see things very clearly.

Craig Boyer

Bayport, N.Y.