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

Now That The House Has Voted To Rein In Trump’s War With Iran, What Happens Next?

The House of Representatives passed a war powers resolution Wednesday to rein in President Donald…

11 hours ago

Who Really Won The Midterms’ Gerrymandering War? The Answer May Come Down To A Few Races

With the dust all but settling from the hard-fought redistricting war between Republicans and Democrats,…

11 hours ago

The SPLC’s Real Scam

It turns out that the most generous funder of white supremacist groups in the United…

17 hours ago

Is AI Making Your Kids Dumber? Over Half Of Teachers Surveyed Say It May Be

Most teachers are concerned about their students’ education amid the looming artificial intelligence revolution, a…

17 hours ago