In Texas, Leftist community organizers target governor over Syrian refugee stance

As you know by now, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has supported the call made by scores of other governors to halt Syrian resettlement to the state.

Texas is the holy grail for the No Borders activists (they want to turn it BLUE) and as such has been the number one state in the nation for several years to receive third world refugees.

(For background see especially our three part Texas series of posts from earlier this year, click here and follow links to parts II and III).

Caterine at governors mansion
Look for Leftwing community organizers like (bull horn) Joe Caterine behind protests like this one. It doesn’t look like “hundreds.” Photo:

It is no surprise that community organizers are whipping up the Syrian issue and protesting the governor as they did this weekend in Austin.  The governor has also been criticized by these same activists for TX role in the DAPA lawsuit.

Calling ‘Pockets of Resistance!’

Maybe folks in Texas ‘pockets of resistance’ need to show their support for the governor in some significant and coordinated way. (Maybe already in the works?)

See this news at The Texas Tribune and note that Catholic Charities of Dallas is thumbing its nose at the governor, and says it will resettle them in Texas anyway!  (Don’t forget that CC is paid by the head to resettle these mostly Sunni Muslim refugees in TX!).

A few hundred demonstrators, carrying placards and chanting slogans, rallied outside the Texas Governor’s Mansion Sunday to protest Gov. Greg Abbott’s attempts to block refugees fleeing civil war in Syria from settling in Texas.

Under the watchful eye of dozens of police, the protesters gathered to criticize what they described as xenophobic and misinformed policies aimed at the war refugees.


Abbott said last week that Texas would not accept Syrian refugees into the state, and he ordered the Texas Health & Human Services Commission’s Refugee Resettlement program to quit participating in the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Texas.


Leaders of the protest said refugees admitted into the United States undergo a rigorous vetting process and will come to the Lone Star State despite Abbott’s order, because the federal government has the final say even if states attempt to cut off financial support that would help them.

“They’re coming no matter what,” said Joe Caterine, head of the Syrian People Solidarity Group, one of the organizers of Sunday’s protest. “If we’re not helping them find a place to live and find a job they’re going to be a burden on the government.”

One group helping with resettlements in North Texas, Catholic Charities of Dallas, announced after Abbott’s declaration on Monday that it would no longer accept Syrian refugees. But on Wednesday the group reversed course and announced that it would continue helping them find homes in Texas despite Abbott’s order, the Dallas Morning News reported.

Continue reading here.

Joseph Caterine
Caterine at Linked In:

Don’t forget!  These protesters are demonstrating for Sunni Muslim Syrians, not all Syrians! 

There are only a tiny number of Christian Syrians in the stream (chosen by the UNHCR) and headed to America, and virtually no Shiite Muslims are in the group.  98% Sunni Muslim!

I think you should keep pointing that out—these are protests FOR ONLY SUNNI MUSLIMS! There may be some Texans who are rightly worried for the Christians in Syria and they need to know that Christians are only a tiny fraction of those getting in to the US.

Who is the leader of the Syrian People Solidarity Group?

Know the opposition!  See more on Joe Caterine, here (with Solidarity Circuit’s Inter-Act) and here (he works for, or did work for, North Texas Area United Way).  More here.

Facebook page for Syrian People Solidarity Group is here.   It really should be renamed—Syrian Sunni Muslim Solidarity Group!

See our huge archive on Texas by clicking here.

22 thoughts on “In Texas, Leftist community organizers target governor over Syrian refugee stance

  1. Reblogged this on America at War and commented:
    I was not aware that Texas was receiving more refugees than the other states until just now, when I read this article. Texas has always gotten more than it’s share of illegal aliens, but these supposed “refugees” from Syria are a different animal entirely. First of all, a good portion of them are not even from Syria!!! They migrated to Syria so they could infiltrate these refugees before they were shipped to countries all around the world. These are people who could go home if they wanted to. But instead they want to come to America and file for healthcare benefits, food stamps, social security etc…. And YOU as a taxpayer have to foot the bill. The name that jumps out at me in this article is “Catholic Charities” Those of you giving money to Catholic charities are helping to fund this nonsense!!!


  2. Ann, same thing in IL Leftists under Rahm Emmanuel Obama’s Chicago man organizing to march on Governor Rauner


    Liked by 1 person

  3. Vetting is impossible and the fact that the UNHCR gets to choose who comes to America is quite telling given that the United Nations is controlled by the 57 Islamic countries that have a locked down influence on refugee influence. Fact- Christians are being slaughtered and at the same time being prevented by the same UNHCR from gaining asylum. I think that this ought to be investigated.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. We welcome guest posts! So please tell us your point of view. Tell us why we should resettle Muslim refugees (or large numbers of any refugees). But please no name calling or emotional appeals—just logic please! Send your guest column via this comment thread and I will post it prominently as a blog post. We truly want to know what you think!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well darn. I was excited about reading Joe’s guest post this morning. I’m disappointed, but he must be busy…making protest signs or maybe he’s working with the OIC to come up with “full and honest” answers to my questions, especially in light of Sturandot’s quotes from the Qur’an. Maybe it’s a translation problem. We keep hearing that Arabic can’t be translated into another language properly. Since the vast majority of Muslims do not speak, read or understand Arabic, Islam seems to have some internal issues about understanding their holy works that I’m sure Joe is trying to work out before he replies, so we non-Arabic speakers, like most Muslims, can understand.

        Come on, Joe. You’re making yourself look bad and your lack of response certainly appears to confirm that you don’t have an argument that can withstand scrutiny. Surely, you can defend your position with a well reasoned argument.

        Seriously, Joe, I may be poking a little fun at you a little this morning, but I really do want to understand how you view the issue. If you’re willing to take a stand in support of the Syrian refugees and willing to accuse Ann of misrepresenting your organization, then your position must be worth defending. Right? We’ll listen.

        Joe? Hey, Joe? We sincerely care about what you have to say. We want to understand, ask questions. Joe?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I am sorry to report that I haven’t heard a peep from Joe since we made the offer—an opportunity to reach thousands of us with his argument for why we should welcome the mostly Muslim Syrians to live in our towns and cities (and why we should pay for it too!).

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I’m sorry too, Ann. Sadly, I’m not surprised though. There may be some good arguments for the program, but when people refuse to do anything other than drive-by insults, it’s a pretty sure bet that they don’t know what they are.

            Thanks for your willingness to allow and host opposing views. Some people think anyone who disagrees with them have character flaws or some sort of phobia, therefore dissenting opinions and facts must be silenced. I’m glad you and most people here don’t feel that way. We need more discussion, not less. Maybe Joe will reconsider.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. It’s not a question of whether or not we should resettle refugees – that is a federal government issue. States do not have any control over the admission of refugees or interstate travel, so once refugees are cleared they are free to go wherever they want in the US. The state government (and Gov. Abbott) only have the power to order Health and Human Services employees to abstain from their duties or to freeze federal contracts that are intended to be used by state agencies and nonprofits working to resettle refugees. So the real question is – should we help refugees find a place to live and find a job when they get here? Gov. Abbott says no, and I say yes. Here’s why:

        If we consider government assistance for refugees to be bad, it seems like withholding services from them when they get here is good. However, without help securing some small degree of financial stability when they arrive, they will be stuck here without a way to provide for themselves, so in the long run they will be even more of a financial burden on government welfare programs. So, if you are for reducing government spending, you should be for keeping resettlement programs up and running.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Please see my addendum post below for an explanation about the distribution of power and sovereignty. Just in case you aren’t sure about my explanation, I got it straight from original founding era documents and afterwards, letters between the founders explaining and discussing the concepts and philosophies of governments, Congressional debates, hearings and SCOTUS rulings (all in context).

          I was also fortunate enough to study history in school before social engineering and living and breathing history into fictional accounts became popular among poorly educated, ideological educators, who have yet to figure out that they’re in the same boat, without a life jacket, as the rest of us. Fortunately, the rest of us have life jackets buoyed by truth we went to the trouble of studying from original sources. And no, Howard Zinn did not write a history book.

          The journey through real history is fascinating. I encourage you to take that trip. I suspect you’re too young to have heard anything much resembling truth when you and your peers were herded through ideological indoctrination. You really are missing some good stuff. Might even change your mind.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. Before you and the rest of your PC/MC indoctrinated crowd starts screaming at level-headed politicians who might actually care about the citizens of this country, maybe you should do some real research about Islam. It was a totalitarian, conquering, supremacist ideology as soon as Mad Mo left Mecca for Medina – and it has not changed. A little something for you to ponder while you’re nursing your hurt feelings about what Ann Corcoran has said.

      From their UN-holy book, the quran:

      2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them…”

      4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

      5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off…”

      8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”

      8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

      9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

      9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

      9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfills his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

      9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

      47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads.”

      And this:

      “The Ikhwan [Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
      —“Explanatory Memorandum”—the strategic plan for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, 1991

      This is also a very informative article:

      Liked by 3 people

    3. I agree with Ann, Joe. I would very much like to read why you think resettling large numbers of people from Islamic failed states, people the FBI has clearly stated cannot be vetted, is the most viable plan to render them aid.

      What assurance can give us that there will be no jihadists, violent or cultural, among them?

      Can you give your word that none are devout Muslims that adhere to Islam’s sacred trilogy and Shariah law?

      How can you assure us that an incompatible belief system whose sacred books are 64% political and only 36% religious do not intend political and religious subversion to force their own supremacist beliefs onto the people of the very country that offered them kindness?

      Can you promise that the Islamic refugees will reject the legal Shariah definition of jihad and not make war against the non-believers as the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira and Shariah law commands them to do…upon the fear of death for apostasy?

      If you are Muslim, what can you do to assure us that you aren’t practicing one of the forms of lying or telling a partial truth to the infidels in order to protect yourself as a minority, to gain entry into the enemy’s camp or to advance Islam?

      Will your words of assurance change when the strength of the devout has risen enough to “make war against the unbeliever until they submit to Shariah law?”

      Please, tell me why I should trust what you say over what Islam says about itself…in its own holy books, its own legal system, and from the mouths of its own leaders and organizations when they’re talking to fellow Muslims?

      I’m sincere. I have no intention of being rude, but each question needs to be discussed fully and honestly. Please, tell us why Islam’s own books, laws and 1400 years of their leaders are wrong? Was Mohammed and Allah lying to Muslims when both told followers to slay the infidel, to wage jihad and fight the infidel until the caliphate is established over the entire world?

      I give you my word, I will follow Ann’s guidelines for polite discourse. I do so anyway. I am truly interested in why you believe resettlement is safe and good for all people.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. The Japanese shared a common culture and religion. So did the Germans, who were predominately Christian. Did we stop them from entering the U.S. during WWII because of their religion or because of the high risk of ideological conflict and subversive activity within U.S. jurisdiction?

          And you have been misinformed. The U.S. central government’s first priority, among the powers granted to it when it was created by the People, is to protect the American people and America. The well being, protection of citizens’ rights, resources, and the safety and security of borders and of the people, always outweighs foreign or altruistic interests. When there is a conflict between being an free Republic and a foreign ideological risk, it’s important to remember that non-citizens, not present physically within U.S. jurisdiction, have no Constitutional protections, much less any right that allows them entry or to immigrate. Ever. Neither is there any right or Constitutional protection for aliens of risk, even if here legally, that can prevent them from being deported.

          In fact, there is no Constitutional mandate to even allow immigration (or refugee resettlement) and we have precedent for stopping immigration during times when it was unwise, to allow assimilation after an influx of immigration, for national security reasons and because of widespread fraud among refugees from certain countries. There is absolutely no Constitutional mandate that requires the U.S. to take one single refugee. Laws that allow it can be repealed or revised by Congress at any time the body so deems it necessary.

          The federal government not only has the natural right of sovereignty to determine who and how many will be allowed into this country, regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin, it has the absolute and undisputed duty to do it, when such alien individuals pose a risk to America or it harms or burdens American citizens in any way.

          Remember, Congress…not the executive…decides what is legal or illegal, by the authority granted to it by the consent of the People, and they took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. It’s not illegal for them to discriminate when it’s in the interest of the Union.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Remember, Congress…not the executive…decides what is legal or illegal,

          I should have added that Congress decides (passes laws) what’s legal and illegal within its limited Constitutional authority. All other authority is reserved to the States and to the People.

          Just wanted to clarify that the federal government is only one of three sovereign entities that exist in the Union. The People are the first sovereigns by virtue of their place in nature’s creation (Natural Law) and Nature’s God. Man, marriage and family existed before government. Governments are instituted among men. Government is a creation of man. The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence reflect nature’s order, or Natural Law, in its divisions of powers, with the three branches of the federal government, the State and the citizens.

          All power must have an origin or it’s not rooted to anything but imagination. In our government, the People are the source of all the powers distributed throughout all phases of government from local to federal. The People agreed to relinquish certain, but limited, powers into prescribed constructs of government.

          The Constitutional order is based in Natural Law. Man is the original sovereign possessor of all power (after the Creator). He created the State governments (upon independence from England), which also precedes the central government and is sovereign in its prescribed authority. Lastly, the People, including the official personages representing the State, acting in their capacity as a sovereign man, created the federal government to manage affairs for the People best handled centrally for the benefit of the People, making it sovereign in its granted powers.

          So, Congress enacts laws within its limited sovereign powers, but it cannot infringe on State powers without State consent. And that’s how they’ve done it…through funding for unconstitutional programs, which requires States to formally consent to relinquish narrowly defined authorities to abide by federal rules and regulations in order to receive the funds. However, States still have the original authority to withdraw their consent at any time.

          For the RRP to operate within a State, governors must consent, but because it is not operated or managed in the same way as other federal programs, the State is not required to relinquish any of its authority. States can say no to any government program, even if it is within the federal government purview, if States and its People determine it to be detrimental to the State and the People or an overreach of presumed federal authority. There may be some skirmishes in court or in legislatures, but if States stick to their Constitutionally protected sovereign right to check federal overreach or to express their disapproval, they have more than a leg to stand on. “…of the People, for the People and by the People.”

          Checks and balances….to ensure protections of the citizens rights, as defined by American law, including, but not limited to, the Bill of Rights.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. Whether or not you think Islam is a problem…

          I know Ann has posted that she is off the Internet for several days, but when we all return from the Thanksgiving festivities, I think, as do many Americans, as well as many people around the world, that an open discussion about Islam is not only relevant, but essential.

          Despite the “hater/Islamophobe/xenophobe, etc.” talking points, most people, the mature adult ones anyway, are capable of discerning the difference between the humanity of Muslims and other Middle Easterners and Islamic political/religious doctrine. A discussion about Islam is not an attack on Muslims, even though I recognize they subscribe, in varying degrees, to Islamic Doctrine. I’m talking about an examination of Islamic doctrine. We can do that by sticking simply to the weighty political aspects, which I also understand is inseparable from the religious aspects for Muslims who embrace mainstream core Islam. Still, for the purpose of examining Islamic doctrine, we can stay within the political realm. Remember that differences in opinion are not the same as deceit, unless knowingly, deceit is employed as the underlying premise of the opinion. Neither are misinformed opinions purposefully deceitful, but does require a willingness to carefully re-evaluate misinformation in a quest for truth or misinformed opinion becomes willful, self-serving ignorance.

          If history and knowledge of human nature has taught us anything, it’s that absent truth, bad things happen. Most people know when they’re being lied to and manipulated, at least, eventually they do, which is why if the circle of deceit is allowed to continue, without any intervention to correct the lies and work from a truthful premise for remedy, human beings, being what they are, will make terrible mistakes. The deceivers also suffer in the conflict, but they have either blithely or willingly decided to accept that the potential to realize their desired outcome outweighs the risks. Those gains are generally temporary, since the longer the deceit is allowed to stand, the bigger the consequences become. The endgame eventually destroys the deceivers and many innocent people–innocent as defined by the English language.

          I’m talking about innocent Muslims–again, as defined by the English language–as well as innocent non-believers in Islam. I have no desire to see anyone harmed. So since, I believe in the Natural Law that underpins this Republic and can discern right from wrong in accordance with those beliefs, I would stand between an innocent Muslim and destruction, just as I would an innocent American, European, African, etc. However, that does not mean that all avenues of protection and aid should not be examined and one chosen that does the most good and the least harm to all involved. IMO, it’s best to avoid getting to the place where harm is a possibility. That is, if enough people can accept truth is more valuable than deceit. That, I’m sorry to say, is a bigger job than seeking the truth, but we start by two people speaking honestly and respectfully to one another, even when it’s hard, even when we may think deceit is justifiable and even when the discussion elicits strong emotions. We can control emotions, but the more out of control emotions become from not addressing issues honestly, the more dangerous those emotions become. War is not a glorious thing, but it is sometimes unavoidable, since there are, and have always been, people who value power over truth.

          The only requirement of this discussion is that all parties must be truthful and civil, as Ann has requested and as I do too. If someone is willfully dishonest, then they own the negative consequences of choosing deceit, not only for themselves, but for others who will also be harmed. When deceit is baked into certain ideologies or positions, even if not the original intent, the importance of truth becomes an even more relevant ingredient in avoiding negative consequences. Truth always serves everyone better than dishonesty. If dying for a cause is part of a belief system, and under certain circumstances, it is for nearly all that are near and dear, then making that choice requires careful considerations and solid just principles.

          All people are capable of deceit. All people make mistakes and from time to time, allow deceit to determine their path, from little white lies to such large lies it causes or supports global calamity. So, we either determine to raise ourselves up above the most base aspects of human nature to man’s higher nature–doing the hard work of higher thinking in truth or we bring about conflict, small and large. Seeking the truth is an ongoing process, not one fell swoop of knowing all there is to know–no one ever knows all–but choosing not to have hard honest discussions is about as dangerously primitive, a willful stagnation in human nature, as we can stoop. That never leads to anywhere good for anybody.

          So, let’s talk about the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. Let’s talk about Islam and its relevance to the refugee issue. I sincerely would like the hear your thoughts about Islam and the impact, current and potential, it is having on refugee resettlement.


Comments are closed.