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

Supreme Court Rebukes Effort To Force Race-Based House Map On Deep Red State

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to allow Alabama to use a redrawn House map that…

5 hours ago

The Dubious Legal Theory That Could Make Life Even More Expensive For Americans

Nearly everyone is concerned about the rising cost of everything from groceries to health care…

6 hours ago

Amazon’s Ring Doorbell Stored Strangers’ Faces, New Lawsuit Claims

A Virginia resident sued Amazon on Monday alleging that the company’s Ring doorbell cameras used…

6 hours ago

Democrats’ Maine Senate Gamble Raises Questions About Standards

The Democratic Party's approach to Maine's Senate race has sparked a debate that extends well…

6 hours ago

Social Media Video Shows Why You Should Mind Your Muzzle

Every firearms range reminds folks about the rules of firearms safety, including keeping the muzzle…

15 hours ago