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

Pool Expert Admits Trump’s National Mall Paint Job Will Actually Look Really Cool

An expert suggested to The Washington Post on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s Lincoln Memorial…

4 hours ago

China Tries Tightening Its Grip On Panama Canal

Chinese government officials are working to shore up their country’s grip over the Panama Canal,…

4 hours ago

Talarico Tries To Pivot Away From Leftism After Gaining Party Nomination

Democratic Texas Senate nominee James Talarico attempted Wednesday to pivot away from his past controversial…

4 hours ago

NATO Gets Another Wake-Up Call From Trump Admin

Contributions of aircraft, submarines, drones and ships from the U.S. military to NATO may be…

4 hours ago

Leftists Plan Striptease Event To Raise Money For Convicted Antifa Terrorists

Leftists are planning an Oregon “strip club” event to raise money for a group supporting…

4 hours ago

‘This Isn’t Holiday Inn’ — DHS Secretary Torches Illegals For Whining About Food Options

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Wednesday flamed detainees who launched a hunger…

4 hours ago