President Trump has vowed that his one trillion dollar infrastructure plan won’t repeat Obama’s “shovel-ready” mistakes. We will see. Some believe his plans will fizzle. But even if he is able to get funding for these needed repairs, he will face a regulatory blockade that will make it hard to get much done quickly.

George Will’s column earlier this month talked about “America’s Endless Infrastructure Mess.” He quotes from Philip Howard who believes we must revamp the way infrastructure approvals are done. We used to get massive public works projects done quickly and efficiently. The nation built the Empire State Building in 410 days, and that was done during the Great Depression. We built the Pentagon in 16 months during wartime.

By contrast it has taken 5 years and 20,000 pages of environmental assessments and permitting to raise the roadway on a New Jersey bridge. Howard explains that there is “virtually no environmental impact (it uses existing foundations and right of way.” It took 14 years of environmental review merely to dredge the Port of Savannah, and this has been an ongoing process for almost 30 years.

Sometimes the environmental concerns being raised actually hurts the environment. Environmentalists litigate against modernizing our country’s electrical grid. Apparently the wasted electricity equals 16 percent of the coal-power generation and that is essentially the same as 200 average-sized coal-burning power plants.

One political scientist put it this way: America has become a “vetocracy” in which intense, well-organized factions block projects through regulation or litigation. President Obama found out the hard way that, “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.” President Trump will soon find this out unless he can break through the regulatory blockade.

More and more social commentators are starting to write and express their deep concern about what has been happening on university campuses. Bernard Goldberg recently wrote about the “Cowards of Academia.” He welcomed the summer so that we don’t have to hear about “those sanctimonious liberal snowflakes” that have taken over college campuses and prove that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum.”

One asylum that got his attention was Evergreen State College in Washington State. They have what is called “A Day of Absence” in which minority students leave the campus as a symbolic gesture. This year, they demanded the white students and faculty leave instead. One biology professor who disagreed with the idea had 50 liberal students disrupt his class and was forced to teach his class in a local park.

Bernard Goldberg was shocked to hear how the school’s president responded. “Did he suspend or expel members of the mob? Did he at least issue a mealy-mouthed note of disapproval?” No he did not.

Other commentators have also expressed their disbelief. New York Times columnist Frank Bruni writes that, “These Campus Inquisitions Must Stop.” He was shocked that the Evergreen president merely said, “It’s just the way discourse goes these days.” Editors at the Seattle Times concluded that at Evergreen State College there was, “No safety, No learning, No future.”

Columnist Fareed Zakaria speaking at the graduation ceremonies at Bucknell University lamented the current state of education on many American campuses. “American universities these days seem committed to every kind of diversity excepted intellectual diversity. Conservative voices and views, already a besieged minority, are being silenced entirely.”

You know the chaos on campus is reaching new levels when many of these progressive voices are now expressing their concerns about what is happening at many American universities.

In an earlier commentary, I talked about how Dennis Prager argues that we are in the midst of a type of civil war. He believes the country is as divided as the real Civil War that divided states. David French argues that we aren’t really in a civil war but are certainly drifting toward divorce in this country.

I will leave for another day a discussion of this intramural debate about divisions in this country. They both acknowledge the deep divisions America that keep growing larger. David French says that, “Americans tend to belong to their political ‘tribe’ not so much because they love its ideas but rather because they despise their opponents.”

He provides some graphs that visually show the ways Republicans and Democrats view each other. Republicans see Democrats as close-minded. Democrats see Republicans as close-minded. The only real difference in the two graphs is the fact that “Republicans view Democrats as more immoral, while Democrats view Republicans as more dishonest.”

Why are the divisions getting worse? One reason is The Big Sort. I’ve talked about this in previous commentaries. Americans are more and more living in areas of the country with people very much like them. Twenty-five years ago, about a third (38%) lived in landslide counties (where candidates won by more than twenty percent). Today six in ten (60%) live in landslide counties.

Another reason is media sorting. We listen to radio programs and watch TV programs that reinforce our beliefs. We visit websites that promote our point of view. The Internet and our smart phones could be used to bring us together. Instead, they are mostly used to keep us apart because we sort ourselves into various tribes.

This is why we now see the politicization of just about everything. Politics intrudes into the political arena but into the entertainment arena and even into sports. That’s what happens because we are drifting toward divorce.

Earlier this month there were a number of marches against sharia law in at least 20 cities organized by the group, ACT for America. They claimed that, “sharia law is incompatible with American Law.” In previous commentaries I have suggested you remember the numbers 1-8-14. Sharia law contradicts the First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteen Amendment. There are other conflicts between sharia law and American law, but all you need to do it remember the numbers 1-8-14.

ACT for America took a different tact and used verses from the Qur’an to make their case against sharia law. The Bridge Initiative Team rejected these verses and made the claim that these were “cherry-picked and poorly translated verses from the Qur’an and traditional literature.” Is that true?

First, their verses are hardly cherry-picked. Various guests on my radio program (like Robert Spencer, Andrew McCarthy, and Joel Rosenberg) remind us that there are approximately 100 verses of the sword that could be used by Islamists to justify jihad. Don’t take their word for it, take a few minutes to check is out. Get a copy of the Qur’an or go online to read one. Read Sura Eight (the 8th chapter of the Qur’an) and see how many times you read in just the first three dozen verses something that could be used to sanction jihad against infidels.

Second, these are not poorly translated. I have in my possession various translations of the Qur’an and ones that are usually cited as the best English translations. Most of the translations agree when it comes to the many verses of the sword. But don’t take my word for it, check it out. There are various versions of the Qur’an online.

All of these attempts to defend sharia depend in part on your ignorance of the Qur’an. Read a chapter or two for yourself, and you will see what is true.

You might expect a nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget would be asked about his or her background in economics or experience in government service. Instead Russell Vought was asked about a theological post that defended a decision made by the administration of Wheaton College.

Daniel Davis said the questioning turned into “nothing less than theological interrogation, and in the end, excoriation.” David French argued that it showed how “religious ignorance breeds progressive intolerance.”

The questioning by Senators Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen had nothing to do with budgetary issues but everything to do with the nominee’s biblical view of salvation that is through Jesus Christ. Senator Sanders concluded that, “this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

Article VI of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, but that no longer seems important in this polarized culture today. But even if you do believe that religious convictions of a government employee are fair game, the questioning shows basic religious ignorance.

Orthodox Christians believe in the exclusivity of Christ. But the other religions that trace their heritage back to Abraham (Judaism and Islam) also have exclusive religious claims. Taken to it logical conclusion, the senator’s views would exclude all orthodox followers of the Abrahamic faith.

This ignorance also leads to the intolerance we see today. Elites in the media, government, and the university have contempt for Christians in general and evangelicals in particular. They don’t understand Christian theology, and don’t care to learn about it. If you stray even a little bit from the orthodoxy of the secular Left, you will be branded a bigot.

This Senate hearing illustrated both the ignorance and the intolerance found in many of our elite institutions today.

There was a time fifty years ago when we had fewer safety devices and less parental supervision, yet most of us survived. Some of us had accidents, but others were lucky to get out of childhood without even as much as a broken bone.

Edward Kosner writes about accidents in his column on “How Not to Step on That Banana Peel.” He quotes from Steve Casner (author of the book, Careful: A User’s Guide to Our Injury-Prone Minds) that deaths from accidents declined for decades but now has begun to rise. The rise in accidents is due to everything from smartphones and driving distractions to the reality that people are living longer and thus have more opportunities to die in accidents.

Why are do we have these avoidable accidents? One reason I just mentioned: distractions. It turns out that people can’t really concentrate on multiple tasks. We convince ourselves that we can do that. We can’t. In fact, we have trouble concentrating on a single task for very long before our attention wanders. He says, “Multitasking is a myth: It generally means doing two things badly at the same time. Remind yourself or someone—to do something in a few minutes and it will be forgotten.”

A second major reason for preventable accidents is overconfidence. Steve Casner’s book surveys research done by a number of psychologists. Their studies “invariably show that people are overconfident about their own capabilities, more open to risk then they imagine, less cool in a crisis, and prone to error.”

A third reason is what is called “risk homeostasis.” This is the “tendency of people to accelerate their dangerous behavior when new safety features are introduced—say, by driving even faster in cars with the latest safety technology.”

Many accidents are avoidable if we apply some of these lessons psychologists have learned.

Senator Ben Sasse writes in his new book about, The Vanishing American Adult: Our Coming-of-Age Crisis and How to Rebuild a Culture of Self-Reliance. He recently took some material from the book and wrote about “What Happens When We Don’t Raise Kids to Become Adults.”

He tells the story of being tapped to become president of Midland University at the age of 37-years-old. The board of directors did so because Ben Sasse had the reputation as a “turnaround” guy who specialized in helping troubled companies become solvent. The university certainly needed his help. They were on the verge of missing payroll four months in a row. But he soon discovered that “finances might no have been the biggest problem at the school.”

One student, for example, staged a sit-in in the president’s office and announced he would not leave until the president resolved a scheduling problem for him. He was upset that the registrar wouldn’t be offering a particular course he needed the following semester. When Ben Sasse engaged the student in conversation, he proclaimed, “You need to figure this out. I pay tuition to go to this school, which means I pay your salary. So you work for me.”

The university conducted annual surveys about student experience on campus. It not only showed their lack of a work ethic but a lack of understanding of the difference between production and consumption. The activities they said they enjoyed most were sleeping in, skipping classes, and partying. A few mentioned canceled classes as the best part of their four years.

I hope that some of these examples seem crazy to you. Unfortunately, for many in this emerging generation, these attitudes seem about right. That is why Ben Sasse wants to reminds these young people that growing up involves maturity, hard work, and even delayed gratification. If not, we will have a country of perpetual kids.

A phrase often used to describe the ideology of Muslim terrorists is the phrase “Islamist extremism.” British Prime Minister Theresa May, for example, used it after the terrorist attacks in London.

Andrew McCarthy says the phrase illustrates “the Western schizophrenia about radical Islam.” He argues in a recent column that, “If you are an Islamist in the West, you are, by definition, an extremist. An Islamist is a Muslim who believes Islam requires the imposition of sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian society system and legal code.”

You don’t need to take his word for it. He also quotes from the president of Turkey who refers to the West’s attempt to soften Muslim convictions by referring to “moderate Islam.” The president calls the term “ugly” and counters that, “Islam is Islam, and that’s it.”

Andrew McCarthy acknowledges that there are gradations of extremism. Some Islamists are violent jihadists. Others may support jihad but are not violent themselves. Still others may reject violence altogether but still want to impose sharia through peaceful means.

The point he is making that any Muslim who wants British law or the American constitution supplanted by Islamic law is not a moderate. They may not try to kill people in an Orlando nightclub or drive a van into pedestrians in London. But they aren’t moderate if they want to implement sharia in your country.

He also reminds us that fifty Muslim governments ratified the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Article 24 states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to Islamic Shariah.” Article 25 adds: “The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

This is what Muslims say about their ideology.