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

Trump Says Hormuz Strikes Were ‘Just A Love Tap,’ Ceasefire In Effect

President Donald Trump told reporters on Thursday that the strikes on the Iranian regime were…

7 hours ago

Nation’s Largest Grid Operator Warns Drastic Measures Required as Data Centers Come Online

The largest U.S. grid operator proposed cutting power to newcomers during periods of high demand…

7 hours ago

Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Democrat Gerrymander Referendum

The Virginia Supreme Court struck down the Democrats’ gerrymandering referendum in a Friday ruling. Virginia…

7 hours ago

Trump Announces New Ceasefire In Russia-Ukraine War

President Donald Trump announced that there will be a three-day ceasefire in the war between…

7 hours ago

Postal Service Poised To Allow People To Mail Handguns After DOJ Memo

The United States Postal Service (USPS) closed comments Monday on a proposed rule that would…

7 hours ago

South Carolina Has Rare Chance To Put Democrats’ Racist Districting Maps Six Feet Under

South Carolina has a rare opportunity to lead. For the first time in decades, our…

7 hours ago