This week, Joe Miller discussed the horrors of known pedophiles and child rapists being protected within US military bases in Afghanistan. He suggested that, “When you put perverts in office, you end up with problems like this.” Listen to that short clip here:

The Editor-in-Chief for former Representative Allen West’s website, Michele Hickford, is similarly outraged. She wrote a column about a headline and story from the Daily Caller that should anger all red-blooded Americans:

I was shocked and appalled to see the headline the Daily Caller had chosen for this story: Army Rejects Appeal Of Green Beret Discharged For Confronting Afghan Boy.

Excuse me if I am shouting, but BOY LOVER? ARE YOU FRIGGING SERIOUS? A child rapist is now called a “boy lover?” How is this in any way acceptable?

You may have heard about an organization called “NAMBLA” which stands for the North American Man Boy Love Association. NAMBLA seeks to “normalize” (as it says on the website) “the love of a man for a boy, and of a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful”. . .

Does the media, the mainstream media now also agree with their aims? Is it no longer politically correct to call a child rapist a rapist, but now a “boy lover?”

I am absolutely beside myself on this one, folks. As a society we now accept all kinds of sexual behavior, gender and even racial identity as normal. It’s all just fine. Even though it may represent a tiny, tiny percentage of the population, any sort of behavior must be accommodated, celebrated, represented — heck even TAUGHT in public schools.

But BOY LOVER to describe a rapist?

Where will this end? At some point, in our civil society, we must say NO MORE.

Yes, folks, its time to put an end to the craziness. What will you do?

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Once again, liberals in Washington are pursuing a dyslexic approach to national security and immigration. Instead of focusing on homeland security, they are continuing to center their attention on nation building in Afghanistan. Ironically, the continued engagement in Afghanistan is leading to more immigration from this volatile region – the very security risk that serves as the impetus for engaging in military operations there in the first place.

As Conservative Review pointed out last year, tens of thousands of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan have been admitted over the past decade. The lack of proper vetting has led to numerous cases where refugees immigrated to the U.S. only to be outed as terrorists or potential security risks. Now, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has inserted a provision into the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016 (NDAA) – the very bill that reauthorizes much of our continued presence in Afghanistan – which would extend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program and allow 3,000 more immigrants into the country from this hotbed of Islamic terror.

The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program, just like its Iraqi counterpart, provides green cards to Afghanis who work for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. They can come over with their families under this process if they meet certain qualifications. Generally speaking, it is a good idea to provide this status to those natives who help the U.S. in foreign wars because they often need protection as a result of their work with the military. But as American citizens have witnessed over the past decade, the rampant spread of radical jihad throughout the Middle East has made it arduous to distinguish friend from foe in the region.

From 2007-2014, the U.S. government has admitted 16,380 translators, interpreters, and contractors from Iraq through this program and 13,015 from Afghanistan [See Congressional Research Service for more information]. These numbers do not include the amount of refugees that have been given green cards because the Special Immigrant Visas are counted as employment-based immigration. Roughly 15,000-20,000 refugees have emigrated here from Iraq each year. With ISIS’s cyber Jihad successfully penetrating so many Muslim communities, especially those who hail from the Middle East, why should the U.S. welcome such needless risk and continue to admit thousands more? It’s important to remember that each interpreter or contractor can bring in an unlimited number of family members. It is very conceivable to have an honest interpreter who has children that are being swept up in the growing Jihadist fervor.

Where is the common sense?

There have been numerous tragedies of our brave soldiers killed in Afghanistan at the prime of their lives because they were double crossed by an Afghani contractor or interpreter. One such “green-on-blue” attack killed U.S. Major General Harold Green in 2014, the highest-ranking casualty in a theater of war since Vietnam. Attacks from supposedly friendly Afghanis accounted for 15% of coalition soldier deaths in 2012.

Last week, an individual who immigrated here in 2009 through the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa program was arrested near Dallas for travelling to Syria and attempting to join ISIS. According to the New York Times, Bilal Abood served as a translator for the U.S. military in Iraq and has since become a naturalized citizen. Now he faces, at most, up to eight years in prison. On top of that, thanks to the refusal of Congress to bring up Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) Expatriate Terror Act, Abood will keep his citizenship.

This story comes on the heels of an endless stream of American Muslims caught fighting for ISIS or engaging in other activities for terrorist organizations. Just last week, federal officials arrested an entire Lebanese Muslim family in Cedar Rapids, Iowa – yes, in the heartland of America – for allegedly smuggling weapons into Lebanon that were likely headed to Hezbollah.

Think about the dyslexic policies that have been pursued since 9/11. In response to the horrible terror attack that was rooted in imprudent immigration policies, our military was dispatched to engage in endless operations in Afghanistan and Iraq…only to bring in more security risks through immigration from some of the most dangerous parts of the world.

The entire purpose of passing a defense authorization bill is to keep this great nation safe. At the very minimum, this bill should not make security matters worse. If nobody offers an amendment to strip out this Afghani immigration provision, conservative members should have no qualms about voting down this year’s NDAA. (See “Dems Put Americans at Risk, Push to Extend Afghan Visas” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.