Rolling out his “budget,” here are the highlights of his comments and some facts.

(His budget) “seeks to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade…” America is currently in debt to roughly the same amount as our annual GDP, $15 trillion plus. $4 trillion seems to be a small decline over a long time.

“The president would achieve $1.5 trillion of the deficit reductions with tax increases on the wealthy…” Here’s the only thing I can ask every time I hear this argument, “Does the government REALLY need more of our money?” I don’t care from whom he wants to take, government is already TOO BIG. Giving them more money just puts us more securely under their thumbs.

“It is important, he said, to make sure the burden of getting deficits under control be a shared responsibility.” Then why in the name of all that is holy does he NOT propose even ONE significant cut in spending except to our military?

“Obama’s spending plan projects a deficit for the current budget year of $1.33 trillion, making the fourth straight year that the deficit would top $1 trillion.” ARE WE PAYING ATTENTION? HE WANTS TO REDUCE THE $15 TRILLION DEFICIT $4 TRILLION OVER TEN YEARS, BUT HIS CURRENT BUDGET ADDS $1.33 TRILLION!

(His budget) “…reflects $3.8 trillion in spending next year, an increase of 0.2 percent over this year’s expected outlays.” Tax more, spend more. This MUST stop!

This last quote should shed all the light needed to wake us up and set us to the work of ridding ourselves of every big government/socialist elected officials in America beginning with this president. Ask yourself one simple question. How does this president plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion when he plans to spend more than is taken in through 2018. Even if he is reelected this year, he will be out of office in 2017.

“The deficits are projected to gradually go down to $575 billion in 2018, which would still be higher in dollar terms than any deficit run up before Obama took office.”

Go to: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Despite all the hyperventilating about a tea party takeover in Congress, the sad truth is that in 2011 Congress increased spending from the year before, raised the debt limit by $2 trillion, and funded ObamaCare.

The highway bill is the latest example of Washington’s bipartisan addiction to big spending. Every six years, Congress passes a spending bill that divvies up the revenues from the federal gas tax and other highway user fees. The money goes into an account called the Highway Trust Fund, and for decades Congress has promised not to spend more on roads and bridges than is available in the trust fund.

But the trust fund has run dry thanks to reckless spending and wasteful earmarks, so Congress bailed out the highway program — to the total tune of about $35 billion — in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Circulating now are two competing highway bills that both increase spending and force new multibillion-dollar bailouts. The Senate bill spends $109 billion over two years and includes a $12 billion bailout of the trust fund. The House bill spends $260 billion over five years and includes a $50 billion bailout. Is this bipartisan spending spree what voters asked for in 2010?

A serious highway bill would at least live within the means of the highway trust fund. But Republicans and Democrats have surrendered to the status quo of unsustainable spending.

The only difference between the House and Senate bills is where the bailout funds come from. The Senate bill pays for the bailout with a bunch of accounting gimmicks that will lead to a larger national debt and higher taxes. The House, for its part, bases its bailout plans on the hope that Democrats will allow us to pursue oil and gas exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), offshore and in the shale of the Midwest.

While expanding our domestic energy resources is vital, it would be unacceptable to use the revenues from new exploration to grow government and not to pay down the national debt. It’s a textbook example of attaching good policy to a bad spending bill so that conservatives will hold their noses and vote for it.

Here’s a radical idea: Why not pay for new spending by actually cutting wasteful spending in other areas? It’s no wonder our country is near fiscal ruin when the option of cutting spending is not even being considered.

It’s also inexcusable that neither bill repeals the wasteful and corrupt Davis-Bacon Act, which forces the government to pay labor-union wages for federal construction projects. Davis-Bacon harms workers who choose not to join unions, and it needlessly raises costs to taxpayers.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Davis-Bacon cost taxpayers nearly $11 billion in 2011 — money that should be going to fix bridges, not line the pockets of union bosses. It’s no wonder Democrats support Davis-Bacon: It’s a congressionally mandated kickback to unions that funnels millions to Democratic campaigns every year. But why do Republicans lack the courage to stand up against wasteful regulations and spending?

Our nation’s fiscal situation is perilous. At $15.3 trillion, our national debt (as measured by the Treasury Department) has already overtaken our national economy, which at the end of 2011 came in at $14.95 trillion (according to the Congressional Budget Office). Bipartisan compromises on spending got us into this mess, and we’ll never get out of it if Republicans don’t offer a fiscally responsible alternative to the out-of-control spending that Democrats endorse.

We should devolve the federal highway program from Washington to the states. We can dramatically cut the federal gas tax to a few pennies, which would be enough to fund the limited number of highway programs that serve a clear national purpose.

In return, states could adjust their state gas taxes and make their own construction and repair decisions without costly Davis-Bacon regulations and without having to funnel the money through Washington’s wasteful bureaucracy and self-serving politicians.

In order to avert a fiscal catastrophe in the near future, we’re going to have to get a lot more serious about curtailing unnecessary federal spending. These highway bills — both Democrat and Republican — are anything but serious.

Since 1979 – when Khomeini returned to Tehran from exile and organized the Islamic Revolution and the hagiocracy that still rules the Persian people, the depth and breadth of Iranian malevolence has consistently shocked and surprised official Washington. President Jimmy Carter believed that “we can find common ground with them.” Four hundred and forty-four days of Americans being held hostage in Tehran proved otherwise.

In the early 1980s, we could put wire diagrams of every major international terror organization up on a screen in the White House Situation Room. But we missed the explosive growth and cohesion of radical Islamists on a global scale. We were shocked and surprised when the U.S. embassy in Beirut was bombed twice; when the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was destroyed and when more than a dozen Americans were taken hostage. Some – like CIA officer William Buckley and Marine Colonel Bill Higgins – were brutally tortured, and then murdered.

And all Americans – not just officials in Washington – were stunned by the hijacking and bombing of dozens of commercial airliners and the murder of Americans. In 1985, when U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem – a passenger on TWA Flight 847 – was shot in the head and his body dumped on the Beirut tarmac, there were some in our government who tied the perpetrators to Tehran, but not enough to make a difference.

The imposition of diplomatic and economic sanctions on the regime in Tehran dating back to 1980 has done little to ameliorate or deter the pernicious effectiveness of Iranian terror – masterminded by Shiite theocrats in Tehran. Worse, it served as an exemplar for Sunni radicals and thugs like Moammar Gadhafi. When the Libyan dictator ordered a bomb placed aboard Pan American Flight 103, killing 259 passengers and crew when it plummeted to earth in Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, he was congratulated by the Iranian regime. So too were the 19 Sunni “jihadis” from al-Qaeda who carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 on U.S. soil in the world’s most horrific terror attack to date.

In the aftermath of all of these attacks, American officials testifying before congressional and other “blue ribbon” panels professed “shock and surprise” that such an act could occur. They wouldn’t have been surprised if they had bothered to read what the radical Islamists in Tehran have been saying and writing about how they will do whatever it takes to destroy the “Great Satan” and Israel – dubbed the “Zionist entity” and the “Little Satan.” Yet, the willful suspension of disbelief continues today.

For months we have been told by the Obama administration that a “new round of severe sanctions” is going to finally stop Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. We’re told we’re finally going to be joined in this effort by the rest of the “world community.” But reality says otherwise. National Intelligence Director James Clapper testified two weeks ago: “The sanctions as imposed so far have not caused them to change their behavior or their policy.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been saying for weeks that Iran “could have a nuclear weapon within a year.” But then he told reporters, there is a “strong likelihood” that Israel may act militarily against Iranian nuclear sites between April and June. Was he trying to prevent the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from being shocked and surprised?

Neither Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, nor the threat of “new sanctions” matter a whit to Tehran. His inaugural “open hand” to Iranian leaders has been rebuffed. And when it comes to “sanctions,” the Chinese and the Russians won’t even go along with a “strongly worded UN resolution” against Iran’s client state, Syria – much less support the “international community” in doing something that might bring about regime change in Tehran.

Salman Rushdie knows his enemy. When he went into hiding 23 years ago this week he did the only sensible thing he could do to prevent being shocked and surprised by an adversary intent on taking his life. It begs the question: where will America hide when we’re shocked and surprised that the Iranians have the bomb?

The Obama Administration’s contraception and abortion mandate goes right to the heart of the problem with ObamaCare.

These latest regulations, including the President’s “accommodation” announcement, are a blatant infringement of our freedoms.

It is not the role of government to force individuals, companies, or organizations to buy or subsidize a product that violates their religious beliefs.

Using state power to force Americans to purchase products against their conscience is a not a church-state conflict — it’s tyranny.

But the contraception mandate is only the beginning of ObamaCare’s tyrannical reach into our lives.

ObamaCare was designed to reduce our freedoms by turning our health care decisions over to a collection of bureaucrats, politicians, and lobbyists.

This is why all Americans should stand together against ObamaCare and fight to repeal the entire law.

It is not enough for certain groups to be given “accommodations,” based on their national influence or campaign contributions. The next group may not be powerful enough to get Washington to address their objections.

To protect all our freedoms, the only acceptable “reform” is for ObamaCare — the entire law — to be repealed. It cannot be fixed.

For this reason, I will seek another up-or-down vote on the full repeal of ObamaCare later this week.

I won’t let the Democrats who voted for this law use small, but insufficient, changes to pretend they’ve fixed it. And I won’t let the Republicans who voted against this law abandon their pledge to repeal it.

We will keep voting on full repeal until it passes.

Respectfully,
Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

During World War II, the War Department and the Department of the Navy urged – the operative word is “urged,” not “ordered,” mind you – U.S. military chaplains to encourage Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Guardsmen and Marines that God was on our side in the global battle against fascists, Nazis and the godless heathens running rampant across Asia and the Pacific. The hymns “Onward, Christian Soldiers” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” were sung with fervor at chapel services regardless of denomination.

The U.S. military I entered in 1961 still had tens of thousands of men and women familiar with such experience. My regimental chaplain in Vietnam, Commander Jake Laboon, a Jesuit priest, was a decorated U.S. Navy combat veteran of WWII. He routinely administered last rites to grievously wounded – and often dying – Marines and Sailors without regard to a denominational preference on their dog tags. It’s a good thing he was there when I was wounded, because, as others related to me later, he was the one who told the surgeons to “take this one next” while I was unconscious on a triage litter at a field hospital. If he hadn’t been there, I might not be here.

All this helps explain my bias. As a general matter, I like chaplains who do their duty to God and man. I especially admire men like Jake Laboon. And I don’t like the way the Obama administration is treating them. This week’s order to muzzle what chaplains can say is yet another O-Team salvo aimed at “de-Christianizing” – and ultimately destroying – the U.S. military.

The opening shot was fired when Mr. Obama declared in his January 2010 State of the Union address that he would “repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” (Emphasis added). The “law” to which the president referred was “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which wasn’t a law at all; it was an administrative policy implemented by the Clinton administration. The actual governing law – Section 654 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code – states, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.” The president ran roughshod over the law of the land in a political payoff to a preferred constituency.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was next. Though the bill was argued, debated, passed by both houses of Congress, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Attorny General Eric Holder unilaterally declared the law unconstitutional in February 2011.

Attorney General Holder was courteous enough to send Congress a letter explaining our legislature’s irrelevance in the matter. He stated, “The President and I have concluded that…Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.” Since then, Mr. Obama has said, “Where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” Efficiency is one of the great advantages of dictatorships.

Dispensing with DOMA paved the way for the Pentagon to green light same-sex “marriages” presided over by military chaplains – on or off base – in states that recognize such “unions.” Now the O-Team has mandated that the Roman Catholic Church must violate its own teachings on birth control and abortion.

The Obama administration’s edict requiring employers – including the Catholic Church – to offer “health” coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and contraception ignited a firestorm. Roman Catholic bishops protested loudly and in unison that the action was a violation of the First Amendment. In churches across the country, letters from the bishops were read to congregations, explaining the directive as unjust and unconstitutional because it forces Catholic institutions to violate their faith or pay staggering fines.

The O-Team shrugged off the dissent until Archbishop Timothy Broglio – who leads the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA – issued a pastoral letter denouncing the Obamacare directive because “the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.” The letter, sent to Catholic military chaplains, instructed them to read it to their congregations on the weekend of January 28 & 29. In his missive, Archbishop Broglio declared that the new rule “is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.”

Apparently, the Archbishop’s assertion that “we cannot – and we will not – comply with this unjust law” was too much for the Army chief of chaplains. He ordered that the letter not to be read in military chapels or field services because Archbishop Broglio had not “coordinated” with his office. Army Secretary John McHugh subsequently admitted that such censorship was “a mistake.”

“Mistake?” It’s wasn’t a mistake if McHugh and the rest of the administration’s objective is eliminating Christianity from the United States armed forces and wrecking the finest military the world has ever seen. We’ll know for sure what the goal really is when the commander in chief orders chaplains to violate their religious beliefs and perform same-sex “marriages” or just get out. And then our men and women serving in uniform will finally have freedom from religion.

The Queen of Death, Kathleen Sebelius, has delivered an edict requiring Christian organizations to cover birth-control and abortifacients in their health insurance. For the power-hungry, there’s never enough. It’s not enough to pass a law legalizing murder, they must force all to embrace their world-view.

A thought occurred to me while ruminating on the content for this article. Using the definition from my friends who have repeatedly gone into harm’s way in our country’s service, a hero is one who puts their life at risk for the benefit of others. That resonates in the soul. Scripture says it this way, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends,” (John 15:13, The Message). That being the case, how would you refer to one who takes the life of another for their own benefit? For abortion advocates, choice is just another word for egocentricity.

We have allowed a perverse elite to take positions of power in our government. What is it going to take for Americans to wake up, take a stand, and repulse these enemies of liberty? Perhaps the awakening will come when the constabulary knocks on your door and after ransacking your home, drags you off to prison because you’ve somehow managed to violate one of their “laws,” like having fatty foods in your refrigerator.

This frog is awake and aware of the fact I’m in a pot and the water is getting hotter by the second.

The U.S. Senate voted on two amendments yesterday that show exactly how tightly politicians cling to power.

The first vote was on a resolution I offered expressing support for a Constitutional Amendment limiting the number of terms someone can serve in Congress.

The term limits amendment was defeated 24-75 with 52 Democrats and 23 Republicans opposing it.

Click here to see how your Senators voted on term limits.

The most common argument I hear against term limits from politicians is that they’re unnecessary because “that’s what elections are for.”

I certainly agree that we should use elections to remove people from office (and there’s probably nobody in Congress who works harder to achieve that goal than me), but incumbents have a significant advantage over challengers. We need term limits to ensure there is a regular rotation of the people who represent us.

The longer someone serves, the more power they accumulate, and the more they lose touch with the voters who elected them. It’s no surprise that the senators who opposed my amendment have been in the Senate an average of 13.6 years compared to just 6.4 years for those who supported it.

The second vote was on an amendment offered by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) to permanently ban congressional earmarks.

Toomey’s earmark ban was also defeated 40-59 with 46 Democrats and 13 Republicans opposing it.

Click here to see how your Senators voted on the earmark ban.

The most common arguments I hear in favor of earmarks is that the Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse” and Members of Congress know their districts better than government bureaucrats.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to appropriate funds, but it doesn’t say those funds should be allocated in a way that puts seniority and campaign contributions ahead of merit and common sense. And in most cases, the federal government has no business operating these programs. They should either be devolved to the states or eliminated entirely.

I’ve heard some say we should just get rid of the bad earmarks and keep the good ones, but earmarking is an all-or-nothing enterprise.You see, if you vote against a single earmark (no matter how bad it is), the committee chairmen will take away your projects. This is why lawmakers will often vote for budget-busting omnibus spending bills just to secure one or two tiny earmarks.

We could have won majority support for Toomey’s earmark ban yesterday if every Republican had supported it, but many in my own party are still reluctant to give up their earmark addiction.

Thank you for your continued support and encouragement. I’m honored to join you in this effort to take our country back.

P.S. All five of the senators SCF helped elect in 2010 — Toomey, Rubio, Paul, Lee, and Johnson — voted in favor of these two common sense reforms. Your support for SCF and our endorsed candidates is changing the Senate one senator at a time.

Washington, DC – The definition above, from my old Webster’s dictionary, was common parlance in the late 1940s and early 1950s as the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigated subversive activity, Soviet espionage and pro-communist propaganda. The committee unearthed spies and traitors – Alger Hiss among them. But when the HUAC turned its attention to Hollywood writers, directors and actors, civil libertarians cried foul. The ACLU and others insist those on the “Hollywood Blacklist” were unfairly persecuted for exercising their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of assembly and speech.

Now, there’s a new millennium blacklist for American patriots who fail today’s political correctness test. Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin U.S. Army (Ret.) – a highly decorated special operations soldier with 36 years of service in uniform – is the newest name on the roster. The silence from the “civil liberties lobby” is deafening.

It’s often said that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Guardsmen and Marines serve to “protect our freedoms” and “defend our liberties.” All true. Now consider what took place this week at the United States Military Academy at West Point – an institution responsible for training young men and women to protect America from those who mean us harm. West Point cadets take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Many West Point graduates will deploy to fight radical Islamists who commit acts of terror against Americans and our allies.

Yet, when the West Point National Prayer Breakfast convenes on February 8th, the cadets will be deprived of hearing from a world-renowned expert on counter-terrorism. General Boykin was a founding member of the elite DELTA Force. He commanded the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. But this week, CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – put General Boykin on the new blacklist. He won’t be at West Point next week.

CAIR lobbied Academy Superintendent, Lieutenant General David Huntoon, to rescind General Boykin’s invitation. Apparently the self-esteem of Muslim cadets and Allah’s adherents elsewhere would suffer lasting damage if General Boykin, unashamed of his Christian faith, an expert on radical Islam and one of the planet’s foremost practitioners of unconventional warfare, speaks on these matters.

This isn’t the first time Islamists and Leftists have intimidated military leaders here at home and demanded the silencing of Christian voices. In 2010, the Pentagon issued – and subsequently withdrew – an invitation for Franklin Graham to speak at the DoD National Day of Prayer. Earlier that year, Tony Perkins, a former Marine and head of Family Research Council, was invited to speak at a prayer luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base. But when Barack Obama subjected our military to open homosexuals, Perkins was deemed too controversial.

Officials at CAIR claim that their opposition to appearances by people like Boykin or Graham is well intentioned and argue that remarks deemed critical of Islam can precipitate violence. They do have a point.

Last week, author Salman Rushdie withdrew from a “virtual” appearance at India’s Jaipur Literature Festival because Muslim organizations threatened bloodshed. Since publishing “Satanic Verses” in 1988, Rushdie has received numerous death threats, including a fatwa from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. Since then, Rushdie has rarely appeared in public.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders lives under constant threats against his life because of his outspoken views on Islam and his cautions about “Islamification in the Netherlands.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another Dutch political figure who grew up in Somalia, once practiced Islam before renouncing it. Now in the United States, she authored the screen play for Theo van Gogh’s film, Submission, a documentary on abuses women suffer in Islamic societies. The movie brought death threats against Ali. Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004 by “a young man of Moroccan origin bent on jihad.”

The Bush and Obama administrations have both stressed America is not at war with Islam. That’s understandable. But it makes no sense to deny radical Islamists are at war with us.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan didn’t commit “workplace violence” at Fort Hood when he killed 14 and wounded 43 others in 2009. Hasan was tutored by radical Muslim cleric Anwar al Awlaki – credited with “guiding” the attacker. Yet the official report on the murderous rampage ignores the connection and is silent about Hasan’s motivation.

This is political correctness run amok. That’s why Mr. Obama bans the term “war on terror” in favor of “overseas contingency operation.” It’s why the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that returning U.S. veterans present a greater danger to America’s security than Islamic terrorists. And that’s why CAIR and the hardcore Left in this country can put names like Boykin, Graham and Perkins on their new blacklist.

Apparently we can’t expect the U.S. government and the ACLU to defend the 1st Amendment rights of men like these from outfits like CAIR. If that’s the case, it’s time for the American people to demand it – before more patriots like General Jerry Boykin get thrown under the humvee.

In the days since the State of the Union (SOTU) address, politicians and pundits of every stripe have parsed the lengthy remarks to find parts they can challenge or cheer. There is no doubt about what POTUS intends for the U.S. economy. Invoking what he calls the “Buffet Rule,” Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on the “rich” until they pay their “fair share” – an amount he has decided should be 30 percent of income. That’s important, but even more critical is what he does and doesn’t say about real national security and protecting the American people.

Our chief executive was less than two minutes into his oration when he reminded us that “For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.” Yet he is failing in his most important duty: commander in chief.

As he walked into the House chamber on Tuesday evening, the president already knew that U.S. Special Operators had rescued two hostages held by Somali terrorists. He has repeatedly been told by those who carry out these high-risk missions that they want to remain anonymous. But before ascending to the podium, Mr. Obama pointedly told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, “Good job tonight!” Just hours later, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters how he had “been in-country, in Afghanistan, in Iraq with these guys, these Special Operations Forces, they are absolutely the most incredible…” By Wednesday morning, unnamed administration officials, anxious to claim credit for the success, were describing how “members of Navy SEAL Team Six parachuted into Somalia” to carry out the rescue.

Disclosure of operational details on how such missions are conducted jeopardizes future operations and makes it more difficult to obtain the cooperation of other countries. But leaks of classified information are now a hallmark of the O-Team efforts to validate a 10 percent increase in special operations forces from 64,000 to 70,000 personnel, and a 30 percent increase in the number of remotely-piloted aircraft (RPAs) – referred to incorrectly as “drones.”

Missed in all of the self-congratulatory rhetoric and noble promises to put military veterans to work rebuilding our “crumbling infrastructure,” create “clean energy jobs” and spur “innovation” are the drastic cuts being planned in our overall national defenses. On Tuesday evening, Mr. Obama urged Congress, “Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do nation-building right here at home.” Two days after the applause from that line died, we learned just how severe the cuts are going to be.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Panetta announced that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps would be cut by more than 100,000 personnel – 20,000 fewer Marines and 80,000 fewer soldiers. The U.S. Air Force will lose six of its 60 tactical fighter/attack squadrons and somehow “reduce, streamline and standardize” its airlift capabilities – the means by which we rapidly move men and materiel to trouble spots. Our Navy will “retire” aging cruisers without replacement, cut the number of fleet logistics and support ships and delay building a new generation of ballistic missile submarines – an essential leg of our “triad” of aircraft, land-based missiles and submarines that serve as our nuclear deterrent. The cuts don’t stop there.

Procurement of the F-35 stealth strike/fighter for the Air Force, Navy and Marines is being delayed for an unknown period of time. And perhaps most telling of all, the new budget promises that those who volunteer to serve in the most difficult and dangerous places on the planet will do so with reduced pay, housing, medical and retirement benefits.

According to the accountants now running the Pentagon, this will yield a “smaller, leaner” military that is “agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced.” Apparently, we can afford an unspecified “slight increase in risk” because of the “changing nature of conflict” and “innovative partnerships” and “key alliances” that we have supposedly forged “elsewhere in the world.”

Unfortunately, neither the SOTU, nor the defense budget proposed two days later, identifies any adversary against which we must be prepared to fight. The president waxes eloquent about taxing the “rich” and the need to control defense spending, but he blusters about the effect of “sanctions” on Iran’s nuclear weapons program – and is mute on the rise of Islamist radicals in Egypt, horrendous drug-fueled violence in neighboring Mexico, and Venezuela’s threat to democracy in Latin America.

It’s important to continue building special operations capabilities. But doing so through draconian, across the board cuts in the rest of our defenses is preemptive surrender to an enemy who will pick the time and place for our next fight.

Tehran replied to the “new sanctions” – which have yet to be imposed – with a series of military exercises and threats to close the narrow Straits of Hormuz through which passes nearly 20 percent of the world’s supply of petroleum. In a now-familiar rhetorical tit-for-tat, the Obama White House propaganda mill responded by leaking that POTUS had sent a “clear and unequivocal message” through a “secret channel,” that cutting the flow of oil was “unacceptable.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and others took to the airwaves and print outlets to talk about Iranian nukes and closing the straits as a “red line” for the U.S.

This week, we learned from Tehran that Mr. Obama’s “secret message” was addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to Ali Motahari, a mouthpiece for the theocrats, “The first part of the letter contains threats and the second part contains an offer for dialogue.” Iran’s government-run Fars News Agency quoted Motahari saying, “In the letter, Obama called for direct talks with Iran.”

The White House has neither confirmed nor denied the contents or even the delivery of such a missive. On Thursday, Obama administration spokesman Tommy Vietor told reporters “The U.S. remains committed to engaging with Tehran and finding a diplomatic solution.” If any of this is true, nothing has changed in nearly three years of the Obama administration – except that Iran is now much closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.

According to U.S., European and Israeli intelligence sources, Iran will begin producing enriched uranium at the deep underground, heavily protected Fordo nuclear facility near the city of Qum, “in a matter of weeks.” Last November, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported indications of “advanced enrichment for potential nuclear weapons use” at Iran’s Nantaz and Bushehr nuclear sites.

The Obama administration’s naïve infatuation with “direct talks” and a belief in equivocal sanctions are at odds with reality. Four years of United Nations sanctions have produced no results. The “open hand” and “mutual respect” Mr. Obama offered Tehran in 2009 have yielded nothing. Last year, the so-called “negotiations” – with the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China on one side of the table and the Iranians on the other – collapsed in Istanbul when Tehran refused to continue talking as long as any sanctions remained in place.

Though new sanctions – like those mandated by the NDAA – appear to be onerous, the deterrent effects on Iranian nuclear ambitions are doubtful at best. According to the new law, on February 29, the Obama administration is supposed to bar international banks that do “any significant financial transaction with the Central Bank of Iran” from access to U.S. banking institutions. But enforcement is up to the O-Team – an outfit not exactly known for adhering to the letter of the law.

And now, some of our “allies” are getting cold feet on cutting their access to Iranian oil – the second phase of NDAA sanctions are due to kick in on June 28. No one really expects Russia, China, Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba to play ball. But this week, France, India, Turkey and South Korea all protested that the new sanctions could adversely affect their economic recovery from a lengthy recession and they need “more time” to find alternative sources to replace the Iranian oil they have already contracted to buy.

Time is what the Iranians want most of all. Like the North Koreans who built nuclear weapons while starving their own people, the ayatollahs have now figured out how to build such devices. Their determination to do so was unabated by the Stuxnet computer virus. They have not been stopped by the violent, untimely demise of five nuclear experts. All Tehran’s masters of deceit and delay need is time. They knew before we did that the threat of supposedly harsh sanctions was undercut by an election-year diplomatic gambit for direct negotiations in Mr. Obama’s “secret letter.”

The effect of White House ambivalence and incompetence is that Iran – the world’s foremost purveyor of terror – will acquire nuclear weapons in the days ahead. When that happens, reopening the Straits of Hormuz to ensure the world’s supply of energy will become a perilous affair.

On January 18, the Obama White House doubled down on this lunacy and pulled the plug on the Keystone pipeline connecting oil fields in western Canada to refineries in Texas. In a blatant pander for votes from environmental radicals, Mr. Obama sold out hopes for improving U.S. energy security, guaranteed higher fuel costs for all of us and eliminated tens of thousands of jobs. All this should be a red line for American voters.