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

Justice Thomas Baffled SCOTUS Won’t Hear Case Against Blue States Handing Truck Licenses To Illegals

Justice Clarence Thomas blasted the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday for blocking Florida’s lawsuit against…

19 seconds ago

Blue State Democrat Cooks Up New Red Tape To Drive Gun Owners Mad

A California state senator has cooked up a new scheme intended to make life difficult…

3 minutes ago

Federal Judges Try Keeping Race-Based Congressional Maps Alive Despite Supreme Court Ruling

A federal panel on Tuesday blocked Alabama Republicans’ House map, ruling that the Supreme Court’s recent…

3 hours ago

No Pain, No Gain

You expect Democrats to stab you in the front, but it’s the RINOs that will…

3 hours ago

US Facing ‘Existential Crisis’ As Fertility Rate Continues To Decline

The U.S. is currently facing a continuously worsening fertility crisis, according to analysts. While the…

11 hours ago

Stop Chasing the Rich Away

Liberal big cities and states have backed themselves into a corner with out-of-control spending for…

11 hours ago