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

Elections Should Not be Conducted In Darkness

This week, the Public Interest Legal Foundation filed two federal lawsuits in Minnesota and Wisconsin to end these states’…

2 hours ago

Who Knew A Whistle Was A Deadly Weapon

Of the 7,309 aircraft in the U.S. commercial inventory, 3,173, or 43 percent, were manufactured…

2 hours ago

Lawn Lawfare

Hennepin County Board candidate and current Minnesota Rep. Heather Edelson is co-sponsoring legislation that would…

2 hours ago

Catholic Voters Are Ditching Biden For Trump: POLL

President Joe Biden, a self-described Catholic, is polling worse with voters from his church than…

2 hours ago