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

It is Frightening to Think of How Close This Guy Was to VP

Tim Walz should have stayed in the shadows. You heard very little about Tim during…

32 minutes ago

Embracing The Past

Democrats are reviving the authoritarian ideologies of history’s most oppressive regimes, once thought to be…

3 hours ago

What The Left’s Colorado Climate Lawsuit Is Really All About

Across the country, left-wing activists are attempting to convert America’s state courts into left-wing policy…

5 hours ago

The Case For A Smaller, Humbler Federal Reserve

For two decades, the Federal Reserve has behaved less like a central bank and more…

5 hours ago

White House Budget Office Launches Funding Probe Into 49 Activist NGOs

The Trump administration is investigating how organizations like “The TransLatin@ Coalition” use taxpayer dollars, according to…

5 hours ago

Ilhan Omar-Backed New Jersey Democrat Congressional Candidate Reportedly Volunteered For Al-Qaida Affiliate

New Jersey Democratic House candidate Adam Hamawy worked for an Al-Qaida-linked nonprofit in the 1990s…

6 hours ago