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

Energy Giants Walk Away From Supreme Court With Big Win

The Supreme Court unanimously sided on Friday with major energy companies seeking to move environmental…

5 hours ago

There are Signs Trump Admin Planning Cuba As Military Target

The U.S. military may be ramping up for a potential Cuba operation, multiple reports suggest.…

5 hours ago

Democrats Are Not Just Rooting Against Trump, They are Rooting Against America

Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome is a convenient excuse to overlook the years of Eric Swalwell…

5 hours ago

Meet The Woke Ex-Criminal Who Went From Gov’t-Funded Activism To Running NYC Jails

Stanley Richards finished his sentence for robbery in 1991 and joined a leftist charity focused…

5 hours ago

LEIF LARSON: A Beer, A Grill, And Guidelines That Finally Make Sense

The Trump administration’s new Dietary Guidelines finally got alcohol right, treating grown adults like grown…

5 hours ago

Donald Trump’s Iron Cabinet

Donald Trump’s critics have a new line of attack (do these people ever take a…

5 hours ago