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

‘We Need Millions Deported’

As the Trump administration appears to shift its sweeping mass deportation agenda, rattled immigration hardliners…

9 hours ago

Can We Forgive Our Past, And Celebrate Our Progress

It is a tremendous waste of time to dwell on the cultures and traditions of…

9 hours ago

Cuba Begs For American Exile Money As Communist Regime Faces Crisis

Cuba’s economic czar is begging for American exiles to invest as the country faces its…

9 hours ago

Blood Sport

Once again, Democrats are on the side against the American people by shutting down DHS. See…

10 hours ago

Medal of Honor Monday: Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Francis Pierce

As the chaos of World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima unfolded, Navy Petty Officer…

10 hours ago

Double-Edged Sword of AI: Job Creation, Yet Higher Unemployment

As we leap into the era of artificial intelligence (AI), we feel both excitement and…

10 hours ago