The Paris attacks, along with direct threats by ISIS to embed jihadis among the millions of ‘refugees’ streaming out of the Middle East coupled with an awareness among many that these ‘refugees’ are not all that they seem, is leading to a belated but welcome hardening of hearts towards these them. The ease with which jihadis can equip themselves with false ID, weapons and a few plausible sob-stories with which to convince the bleeding hearts of the ‘refugees welcome’ crowd, is creating an obvious security risk to free nations.

Reality is also hitting as people understand that it is not possible to vet these ‘Syrian’ ‘refugees’ in any meaningful way. They could have false papers and false stories and there may be no reasonable way of checking up on them. These ‘Syrians’ are hardly likely to be on any Western databases and getting accurate information about their whereabouts and social standing whilst in Syria may be almost impossible. It’s not possible in my view to check that the individuals seeking asylum are who they say the are. We have almost no accurate way of even knowing if those presenting for an asylum claim are even Syrian. It’s a complete mess and the Prime Minister David Cameron and the Home Secretary Theresa May are being dishonest if they that these ‘Syrians’ will be properly vetted.

Despite the concerns, despite the dangers, Cameron and May along with the idiotic ‘refugees welcome’ lot, are bringing ‘Syrians’ to the UK with no way of knowing whether they are decent people, closet jihadis, murderers, war criminals or just yet more Islamic rapists ( a group that Britain has more than enough of already).

Some Governors of American States have expressed alarm at the composition of these ‘refugees’, how and if they will be properly vetted and will they add to existing problems with Islamic extremism in the United States? Because of this concern, a very valid concern in my opinion, a number of State Governors have refused to accept ‘Syrians’ whom the central government of Barack Obama, wishes to foist on them.

Now although the Governors have no legal power to refuse the federal government if the Obama regime insists that ‘Syrians’ are resettled in their State, this refusal does send an important message both to President Obama and to the American people. This message to the Central Government and the people is this: ‘The games up’, it can be seen that these are not genuine refugees, but troublemakers on the march’. It is a message of honesty in that here is a security problem and the governors are faced with the choice whether to tell the truth about the ‘refugees’, which many have, or lie and mutter platitudes about ‘humanitarianism’ or something similar.

Here is a list of the States where the Governors have attempted to tell the truth about the ‘refugee crisis’

Alabama,

Arizona,

Arkansas,

Florida,

Georgia,

Idaho,

Illinois,

Indiana,

Iowa,

Kansas,

Louisiana,

Maine,

Maryland,

Massachusetts,

Michigan,

Mississippi,

Nebraska,

Nevada,

New Jersey,

North Carolina,

Ohio,

South Carolina,

Tennessee,

Texas,

Wisconsin

Wyoming.

That’s 26 State Governors, all Republicans, out of 50 States, who are worried about the impact including the security impact of ‘Syrian’ refugees. The question needs to be asked, if these State Governors could see that there is a danger in being too welcoming to these ‘Syrians’, why has not the British government done the same? It has been obvious for a while now that the ‘refugee crisis’ was a golden opportunity for jihadists based outside of Europe and the United States to gain access to these places and inspire and join up with other elements of the Islamic Jihadist fifth column that currently exists among the Islamic diaspora in free nations.

Those who said that the ‘refugees’ would constitute a future terrorist threat are currently being proved right. Britain should have said no, no, no to these ‘Syrians’ and it is my belief that allowing them in is going to bring nothing but trouble. It’s beyond me why Cameron couldn’t be honest with the British people like these US State Governors have been to their constituents. Cameron could have said: ‘We are not letting these people in, the security risk is too great,’ when faced with loud and unrepresentative ‘refugees welcome’ activists who were shroud-waving and emoting like mad. But he didn’t, he folded, bent like grass in a strong wind, and allowed in thousands of ‘Syrians’ about whom we know very little about. Cameron weakly chose the emotionalism of the ‘refugees welcome’ fools and ignored the danger to national security.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the sad situation where a US State Governor cares more for their people than the British Prime Minister cares about Britons. What an appalling state of affairs this truly is.