Trending Commentary

Does a two-track security clearance process make sense?

I suggest two tracks to determine who should retain security clearances:

First: Review and revoke all clearances as warranted by the conduct of the holder.

Second: Perform a cost-benefit assessment for all security clearances held by those who are no longer on the government’s payroll. That’s just good financial sense.

The first step will protect national security. The second step will save taxpayer dollars.

Critical question: If a person without a clearance will not consult with the President, what difference does possession of a clearance make?

Allegation: Many persons are monetizing their clearances. Why should taxpayers subsidize them?

John Lucas

Share
Published by
John Lucas

Recent Posts

Democrats Are in No Position to Lecture Anyone About Candidates

Democrats are again acting like they occupy the high moral ground of American politics. But…

18 hours ago

Draft US-Iran Peace Deal Includes $300,000,000,000 Investment Fund, Report Alleges

A preliminary agreement between the U.S. and Iran may include a $300 billion reconstruction fund,…

18 hours ago

Russian Drone Hits Apartment Building In NATO Member Country

Romania said a Russian drone crashed into an apartment building near its border with Ukraine…

18 hours ago

‘If I Hit One Of Y’all’: Truck Driver Unloads On Anti-ICE Protesters Stopping Him From Doing His Job

Anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters blocked a truck driver from driving through the street Wednesday…

18 hours ago

Why is an American Mayor Kissing the Pope’s Ring

Chicago had its typical holiday weekend - 13 people were shot during Memorial Day weekend…

18 hours ago

Ohio Axes Data Center Tax Break After Billion-Dollar Forecasting Error

Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine is pausing a tax break for data centers after it…

19 hours ago