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

As Britain And France Try Prying Hormuz Open With Their Own Crowbars, Uncle Sam Forms New Coalition

The U.S. has invited all NATO allies to join a Washington-led maritime security initiative in…

13 hours ago

CIA Spooks Spied On Tulsi Gabbard’s Team As It Probed Deep State, Whistleblower Alleges

 The CIA illegally surveilled its own intelligence community colleagues who were overseeing the agency’s clandestine…

13 hours ago

Septic Truck Explodes After Being Struck By Train, Video Shows

A train collided with a septic truck on Thursday in Virginia, video shows. The crash…

13 hours ago

The Left Wants Many Changes to the Supreme Court 

It is laughable to see any member of Congress telling a reporter that there should…

14 hours ago

The Left’s Attack on Courts Is Meant To Destroy the Constitution

The story plays out the same way virtually every time. Democrats, egged on by the…

14 hours ago