Predictably, every big media outlet had the same breathless reporting after Monday’s congressional hearing with former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Yates told senators that she warned the White House counsel that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was not telling the full truth about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. (Flynn did discuss sanctions when he said he had not). In addition, Barack Obama had warned Trump against hiring Flynn.

So what? As I pointed out Monday, in what world would the Trump White House trust Barack Obama, who had also hired Flynn, fired Flynn, allowed him to travel to Moscow and reauthorized his security clearance? Obama also had engaged in an over-the-top effort to deny Trump the presidency.

There were some things we learned Monday, and they are exactly the kind of things big media does not want the average American to know. For example:

Clapper and Yates said nothing Monday that in any way advances the Left’s narrative that the Trump team colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that there is no evidence to support that bizarre claim.

Beyond Russia’s hacking, the only crime that we know of was committed by an unknown individual who leaked classified information obtained by the National Security Agency to The Washington Post. It is likely that this person is in the intelligence community or the Justice Department. The purpose of that leak was to destabilize the duly elected president and his administration. That is much more serious than a hack by Russia of the Democrat National Committee.

Perhaps the biggest revelation, which is being largely ignored by the media, was Clapper’s admission that in the course of monitoring certain foreigners, the conversations of multiple members of Congress and other elected officials have been swept up in intelligence gathering efforts. Clapper also said that he had requested the name of a member of Congress or Trump associate be revealed.

The most important “witness” — Susan Rice — unfortunately wasn’t there. Subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham requested her testimony, but for whatever reason, she declined. Sen. Graham should subpoena Rice to compel her testimony.

I continue to believe that Rice is central to what could be the biggest political scandal in modern history — the political abuse of our national security apparatus by the Obama administration, which is a far bigger story than whatever Michael Flynn said to the Russian ambassador.

You may recall that on April 5th I asked why do we believe that only Trump was monitored. Why not Bernie Sanders or other GOP candidates? Monday, Sen. Rand Paul sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee demanding to know whether he and other members of Congress were monitored by the Obama administration.

Journalists have suggested that while Obama was cooperating with an enemy of the United States (Iran), his operatives in U.S. intelligence agencies spied on the opponents of the Iranian nuclear deal, many of whom talked with officials of the Israeli government.

Here’s an interesting question: Was anyone in the intelligence community monitoring Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to see if they were colluding with Iran to undermine an ally of the United States?

Promise Kept

After successfully nominating and confirming Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, President Trump is making good on one of his most important promises — appointing conservative judges to the federal courts.

Monday, the White House announced a slate of 10 nominees for appellate and district court judgeships, all of whom were vetted by conservative legal scholars who know how to examine a judge’s record and judicial philosophy to determine if they are committed to following the clear meaning of the Constitution.

The White House currently has 129 judicial vacancies to fill. I can’t tell you how grateful I am that “President Hillary” is not naming these judges!

I’d like to thank a retired senator for his role in the process. We didn’t truly appreciate it at the time, but we should all thank Harry Reid today. By changing the Senate rules to require only 51 votes to confirm federal judges, Reid guaranteed that practically anyone Trump nominates will be confirmed so long as Republicans control the majority. Someone should host a thank you dinner for Harry, but it isn’t going to be me.

The Christian Response

Yesterday I mentioned that the Trump administration was back in court defending the president’s executive order limiting immigration from certain Islamic countries. I also mentioned a refugee camp along the border of Jordan and Syria. Even the hardest heart breaks reading about the 80,000 people “trapped in a scrub land of hopelessness.” Unfortunately, military officials estimate that 5% of the camp’s residents — about 4,000 people — could be jihadists.

What is the proper Christian response to the suffering at this camp?

Christians can send food and clothes. Some people may feel called to become missionaries and volunteer in the camp. Heaven would rejoice at such a choice. Anyone doing that might be putting their life in danger, and that would be a very Christian response to such tragedy.

What is not an appropriate response is for the United States government to bring refugees from such camps into our country, potentially endangering innocent Americans.

It is one thing for someone to take that risk upon themselves. I suspect many people reading this report cheerfully support and regularly pray for overseas missionaries. Carol and I certainly do.

But it is unacceptable in my view that some Christian ministries are aggressively lobbying the United States government for more tax dollars to resettle more refugees in this country. It is probably not the most efficient use of resources, nor does it make sense. How “Christian” is it to expose our communities and children to greater risks of terrorism?