19 Comments
User's avatar
Suzie's avatar

This is so 101. it’s hard to believe it isn’t required!

Just take Swalwell and his Chinese honey for one glaring example, amongst many other officials and their highly questionable cohorts.

But will Congress ever vote to investigate themselves? Hah, not likely.

Pnoldguy's avatar

It all started with the members themselves calling each other "the honorable" which led them to actually think they were. Asking a corrupt band of thieves to produce the laws required to rein in their corruption is unlikely to produce the intended results.

Electing the very people that promote the destruction of the country is the camel getting its nose under the tent. The very fact that Congress will not write the laws that prevent their own body from traitorous actions tells us all we need to know about this body. This affront to society is due to the voters that failed to vet those that they are voting for. Voting on appearance, party, or emotion rather than competence, honor and intellect gave us the miscreants we have today.

Kelly Donivan's avatar

There is nothing "honorable" about Congress. Sad.

SP's avatar

The truths written in todays' S'Stack are so obvious it's painful that it needed to be written at all.

The United States has seen it's 250th birthday, only by the grace of God in my opinion. If something drastic doesn't occur before this November election, we will not see our 500th birthday.

John Adams, writing in 1798 that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We allowed our gates to be opened and our walls to be torn down. Millions of amoral people, and even worse, a people intent on the destruction of the West with a religious fervor, are now the ones given the keys to our future.

I fear we have used up our grace allotment and will now suffer the results of our morality, not God's morality.

Kelly Donivan's avatar

You are absolutely 100% correct. Our founders are spinning in their graves.

SDN's avatar

I like the article, but the most likely outcome is one that you left out. "OK, fine. We'll apply it to the President and Vice President too." Does anyone think that the Deep State would have granted Trump a clearance? Or denied one to Obama or Biden?

Susan Daniels's avatar

Apologies to Alexander Muse for including the articles I am afraid people have not seen.

Obama has used a stolen Connecticut Social Security number since he was in his mid-20s. https://susandaniels.substack.com/p/barack-obama-is-the-real-felon

And Ilhan Omar lied about her name when she entered this country and did marry her brother. https://susandaniels.substack.com/p/ilhan-omar-married-her-brother-and

An Appeal to Heaven's avatar

It has been adjudicated at the SCOTUS level that all declassification flows through the President. Therefore this would not be an issue for anyone within the orbit of POTUS.

Kurt Wullenweber's avatar

We need to start seriously considering massive changes to our constitution. We CANNOT survive laws that allow open enemies to use those laws to destroy us, or we must use those same laws ourselves to justify the end of those who openly declare their goal is the destruction of the very nation we have a duty, and soldiers and veterans have sworn a lifelong oath, to defend from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.

EricStoner's avatar

I hope no enemy figures out that this is a great way to place spies. (Sarc/off)

Firewagon's avatar

Cue the laugh track. Wait one, that thing self-immolated seeing that. You don't think our "enemies" are too dumb not to already have figured that out? Those "leaks" coming out of that Congress are not simple 'mistakes.'

Richard Luthmann's avatar

On paper, a congressional exemption from personnel vetting is not unrestricted access to every secret. But it might as well be. The fact that we are even examining this issue shows that the American intelligence apparatus leaks like a sieve, and it's all rationalized in the name of Washington "oversight."

Cara Wakefield's avatar

I wouldn't trust a Congressman as far as I could throw them. Of all the people who should be scrutinized it's them.

Firewagon's avatar

I would propose a far more stringent rule, in addition to that recommended background check, that would prevent known/professed Communists and Muslim Islamists from being seated in the Congress of the United States! There are at least 4 Anti-American Muslims and one or more communists seated in the Congress of the United States, and ALL should be removed and DEPORTED to any 3rd World country they would have America become! As John Stossel would say. “GIVE ME A BREAK.”

Ronda Wells MD's avatar

Too many in Congress are actually antiAmericans and want to destroy our democratic republic. That should immediately disqualify them, but their constituents are also of the same opinion. The rules for secret access should be changed—and spies/terrorists must be vetted!

James Mead's avatar

Rules for thee and not me once again for our "betters"

RL's avatar

👍👍👍👍👍👍

Michael Woods's avatar

The exceptions created in 1994 need to be repealed as a start. Pretty simple, and completely justified given the recent history of abuses. From there, every legislator needs to be subject to the same rules and scrutiny as staffers. Another simple step. After that, mandatory sentences for any betrayal of confidence. Step by step incremental reform.

RL's avatar

👍👍👍👍👍