If you want to see how political correctness can even be used to destroy a fellow liberal professor, just look at what happened to Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis. Her essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education led to a university investigation of her in what she has described as “My Title IX Inquisition.”

Rich Lowry believes it is a good example of PC liberals devouring their own. Her alleged “crime” was to write about “sexual paranoia” on college campuses. She teaches filmmaking but found some of her students could not watch the assigned films because they “triggered” something for them. In her essay, we also lamented the new “sexual panic rules” and new speech codes that are what she called “a striking abridgment of everyone’s freedom” and are “intellectually embarrassing.”

She is right, of course. But the liberals on any university could not have a fellow progressive say as much. Conservatives realized long ago to keep their head down on campus. But the illiberalism of the left was turned on a fellow liberal. The university eventually cleared Kipnis of the charges, but the process was the punishment. I doubt she (or any other professor) will write about triggers or sexual paranoia any time in the future.

David French believed that might be a turning point. He points out that: “Feminists from Jezebel to The Nation have expressed concern about Kipnis’s treatment.” One would hope so. Campus intolerance and academic investigations seem to be increasing. Charles Cooke, on the other hand, disagrees. He believes that political correctness is merely in the process of “mutating into a form that is less obviously damaging to progressive interests.”

Let me also add that political correctness in higher education doesn’t just stay on college campuses. These political correct ideas become the basis for future government policies about speech and corporate rules about what constitutes a hostile work environment. That’s why we should be concerned about what happened to Laura Kipnis.

Yesterday I documented that there are too many regulations in America. There are also too many laws. The Heritage Foundation has put together some important facts and figures in their investigation of the overcriminalization in this country.

Today there are more than 4,500 criminal laws and probably more than 300,000 relevant federal regulations. This was not always so. In their article, they have a graph that shows the “Explosive Growth of Federal Criminal Law.” The greatest growth took place in the 20th century, and we have had a dramatic increase in criminal laws since 1980.

The authors also found that there “are now so many statutes and regulations making conduct a crime that the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Justice Department, and the American Bar Association cannot even count all the offenses.” If legal experts cannot keep track of all these laws, how can the average person be expected to know them?

Sadly, many of the newest laws have a dangerous flaw. “Many federal criminal laws make it possible for the government to convict someone even if he acted unknowingly or without criminal intent.” That means you and I can never really know if we are safe from prosecution.

There are solutions. First, Congress should repeal unjust or unnecessary criminal laws. They should begin with laws that make it a crime to engage in conduct that no reasonable person would think was unlawful. Second, Congress should be forced to justify all new criminal laws. At the very least, Congress should provide a written analysis and justification for every new or modified criminal offense. Third, Congress should not delegate power to those in the bureaucracy. Unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats should not be allowed to essentially write criminal laws and penalties.

The overcriminalization of America is a problem many of my radio guests have talked about. The Heritage Foundation provides some important facts and common sense solutions Congress should enact.

America is awash in regulations. Some are necessary, but many are petty, restrictive, and inefficient. Charles Murray was on my radio program to talk about his new book, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. He not only has some alarming statistics about the explosion in government regulations, but also proposes solutions for fighting them.

Most of us are committing crimes and don’t even know it. The number of federal crimes you could commit has increased 50 percent since 1980. The Affordable Care Act has 400,038 words, and Dobb-Frank has 377,491 words. The Code of Federal Regulations has over 175,000 pages.

We can all agree that some regulations protect our safety and our environment. But Charles Murray reminds us that many regulations are written by “bureaucrats with way too much time on their hands.” There are mandates for such things as the type of “latch for a bakery’s flour bins or the proper way to describe flower bulbs to customers.” Regulations waste our time and prevent us from doing our jobs as well as we could.

He reminds us that the regulatory state has two weaknesses: it relies on voluntary compliance and it is limited in its enforcement resources. The regulatory state is the Wizard of Oz. It can sound fearsome with a booming voice when directing its attention at an individual citizen. It is less effective if lots of citizens decide to simply ignore a stupid regulation.

He proposes a private legal defense fund, called the Madison Fund, to aid businesses and citizens who stand up to federal regulators trying to force compliance to pointless rules. The goal would be to empower citizens so they could say: “If you come after me, it’s going to cost your office a lot of time and trouble, and probably some bad publicity.” If a bureaucrat already has ten other similar cases, “its unlikely the bureaucrat’s supervisor will even permit him to take it on.”

America has too many pointless regulations. Maybe it’s time to ignore some of them.

Campaign season is just around the corner. So we are now hearing from all sorts of pundits and consultants about what candidates should do or not do. Karl Rove recently asked, Are Social Issues Hurting Republicans? His answer is yes. That is why he is calling for a change in how Republican candidates address abortion and marriage.

He understands that candidates cannot totally ignore these core social issues. He points out that 43 percent “of the votes Mitt Romney received in 2012 came from white evangelical Christians.” He predicts that the party “would fracture if it abandoned its long-standing support for traditional morality.” So he proposes that candidates find ways to communicate their support of traditional marriage in a way that “holds social conservatives while attracting socially moderate independents.”

Gary Bauer asks another question. He wonders: “whether it ever crosses Rove’s mind to write a column entitled, Are Economic Issues Hurting Republicans? He is trying to make the point that on social issues, candidates are not out of the mainstream. If anything, the real challenge in on many of the economic issues.

Here are a few poll numbers Gary Bauer picked out to show the real challenge for candidates in the 2016 election. For example, nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans think the rich should pay more in taxes. More than seven in ten (71%) want to increase the minimum wage. Only about a third (36%) of Americans think Social Security benefits for future generations should be cut.

He argues that candidates are losing national elections not because of abortion or other social issues. They may be losing elections because of “the perception that the Republican Party cares first and foremost about corporations, not Main Street America.” That is why he believes the party may be more out of step with voters on economic issues than with values issues.

Gary Bauer’s comments are a reminder that social issues are not losing issues. Candidates who stand for life, marriage, and religious liberty will find people willing to work for their campaigns and eager to vote for them on Election Day.

Teenagers grew up with technology and have become increasingly dependent upon it. We shouldn’t be against digital technology, but we do need to understand its impact and help our children and grandchildren use it effectively. That is the message of Dr. Kathy Koch’s book, Screens and Teens: Connecting with Our Kids in a Wireless World. She was on my radio program recently to talk about the principles in her book.

We began by talking about the five core needs that all of us have, including teenagers. They are: security (who can I trust?), identity (who am I?), belonging (who wants me?), purpose (why am I alive?), and competence (what do I do well?).

It doesn’t take lots of discernment to realize that these new digital devices connect with these core needs in both positive and negative ways. We should be concerned with children who only trust Google or Siri and get their sense of identity and belonging from Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. She also points out that unlike adults, they may not have great coping mechanisms so they are inclined to turn to these devices for comfort and affirmation.

The core of her book is the five myths that are enhanced by these technologies. Lie #1 is “I Am the Center of My Own Universe.” That is easy to believe when smart phones and tablets reinforce the narcissism of adolescence. Lie #2 is “I Deserve to be Happy All the Time.” Lie #3 is “I Must have Choices.” We live in a world of choices: look at the cereal aisle, look at all the ways you can order a Starbucks.

Lie #4 is “I am my own authority.” These devices allow you to determine what articles you read, what music you hear, so you control your world. And lie #5 is “Information is All I Need. So I don’t Need Teachers.” Why learn math or history or anything. The answers are on already on my smart phone or computer.

I recommend the book, Screens and Teens, for parents, pastors, and teachers. It will help you navigate the new digital world.

Each day we get closer to the June 30 deadline for the president and his administration to negotiate a nuclear treaty with Iran. What we have learned so far doesn’t suggest that we should enter into an agreement nor should we trust what the leaders of Iran say they will do. Let’s look at a few issues.

Iran’s nuclear stockpile is significant. They were supposed to send thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium to Russia for export that would then be returned as rods to use in peaceful energy production. A recent article in the New York Times reported that “Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations.”

We are now learning about all sorts of concessions that have been made at the bargaining table. Before the talks began, the administration assured everyone that Iran would be forced to stop all uranium enrichment. It continues to do so, and would continue to do so under any agreement or treaty.

The centrifuges where this is taking place are increasing in number. And the latest word in the negotiations is that over 6,000 centrifuges would be allowed to keep spinning even under an agreement or treaty. The same could be said about various nuclear sites in Iran that would most likely be allowed to continue to function.

One other concern is the missiles that Iran has been developing. If you look at some of the maps that have been produced to show the range of Iranian missiles, you can see that Iran not only threatens Israel but many countries in Europe and the Middle East. Negotiators even dropped demands that Iran restrict the development of intercontinental missiles.

Here’s an important question: Who are we are dealing with in these negotiations? The Ayatollah Khamenei frequently denounces America as the Great Satan. He and the mullahs have made it clear they don’t plan to join the international community or play by its rules.

This leads to a final question: Why are we trying to sign an agreement or treaty with a militant Iran?

Americans need to make an informed choice about this country’s foreign policy. We will be making that decision in this upcoming election. And I believe that foreign policy will be a more important issue in choosing a candidate than in previous elections.

Ian Bremmer explains the options in his book, Superpower: Three choices for America’s Role in the World. In the last few decades we have had what he calls “Incoherent America.” He quotes from one former senator who acknowledges that: “We have not had a clear articulation of what American foreign policy is basically since the end of the Cold War.” That is why he offers three policy solutions.

The first is “Independent America.” Instead of squandering lives and resources on poorly planned policy adventures, proponents argue that America should mind it own business. Don’t completely isolate America from the world, but consider how to invest billions here are home. And leave extra dollars in the pocket of taxpayers to fuel an economic revival.

The second option is “Moneyball America.” He borrows the concept from the book about Billy Beane and the cash-strapped Oakland A’s. Proponents want America to focus less on selling American values and spend more time of protecting U.S. interests. It would require the president and Congress to set priorities and stick to them.

The third option is “Indispensable America.” It begins with the realization that most other countries are playing Moneyball, and that’s why America must lead. The next president needs to set forth a global agenda and work to shape and maintain the global order. Proponents also want to fight for values like democracy, human rights, and capitalism.

When Ian Bremmer was on my radio program, I asked him to link these views to various candidates. Although we had some examples, we both had to admit that we haven’t heard enough from some of the candidates to identify their views. Over the next few months, we will be hearing from the candidates, and we should pay attention to what they say.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will deliver its decision concerning same-sex marriage. There are two possibilities for how they might rule. The first option will affect churches and Christian organizations quickly. The second will also have an impact, but will take place over a longer period of time.

One possibility is a ruling that will essentially force same-sex marriage on the entire country. The justices might argue that state constitutional amendments defining traditional marriage violate the equal protection clause. The justices will essentially be arguing that the sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment not only had blacks in mind but also homosexuals and wanted to prevent states from treating gay couples differently than heterosexual couples.

If the justices say these amendments violate the equal protection clause, they will be creating a fundamental right for homosexuals to marry one another. This new constitutional right will have to be balanced against other constitutional rights like the right to free speech and the right of free association. Soon judges and bureaucrats will enforce laws and regulations that advance homosexuality at the expense of free speech and religious liberty.

The other possibility would be for the court to leave the definition of marriage up to the states. I think this is less likely. If the justices rule that some of the earlier federal judges were incorrect, then what would be the status of people who received marriage licenses in those states? Their state constitutional amendment prohibited gay marriage, but a federal appeals court judge allowed it. Are those marriages invalid? State courts and legislatures would have the difficult task of trying to sort it out.

No matter how the court rules, there will be debate and dissention. In the oral arguments the solicitor general of the United States made it clear in many of his responses that there will be a battle between legalized same-marriage marriage and religious liberty. As Christians we need to be prepared for a battle over marriage however the court rules.

Who would have guessed that the panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University would have generated so many comments and commentaries? Many people have discussed some of the statements by President Obama. I wrote a commentary a week ago about his frustration with religious groups who he believed spent more time talking about social issues than addressing poverty.

Thomas Sowell decided to write about the plea from the president for wealthy people to help the poor. The president proposed that one of the ways to fight poverty would be to “ask from society’s lottery winners” that they make a “modest investment” in government programs to help the poor. For the moment, let’s set aside the harsh reality that government programs don’t help people escape poverty. Faith-based organizations are much more effective in addressing poverty and many other social problems.

Thomas Sowell focuses his comments on the rhetoric about “asking” the more fortunate for more money. He reminds us that the government does not “ask” for anything. It seized what is wants by force. “If you don’t pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.”

He also questions this idea that wealthy people are lottery winners. Perhaps some are. But Thomas Sowell asks: “Was Bill Gates a lottery winner? Or did he produce and sell a computer operating system that allows billions of people around the world to use computers, without knowing anything about the inner workings of this complex technology?”

Thomas Sowell also questions the frequent phrase: they need to pay their fair share. He points out that this fair share is never really defined. He believes that it “must remain undefined because all it really means is more.”

The rhetoric of the president and many in Congress is made to sound fair and equitable: “We should ask people who won society’s lottery to pay their fair share and make a modest investment in government programs to deal with poverty.” It may sound nice, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.