Donald J. Trump / @realDonaldTrump
09/28/2022 09:15:36
Truth Social: 109076213665761432
Tiny Crosses / @tinycrosses
09/28/2022 07:05:15
Truth Social: 109075701118727219
Donald J. Trump reTruthed…
https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/109076213665761432/activity
Kaboom-tish!
.>So Ghislaine Maxwell is in Florida, and Hurrican Ian is heading her way. That happens to be her brothers name as well.
A low-security federal prison in Tallahassee
Interesting anon
Massive' transatlantic data cable landed on beach in Bude (UK)
Published -14 September 2021
…
The tech giant has named it Grace Hopper after the American computer scientist and United States Navy rear admiral.
It is about 7,000km (4,350 miles) long and is the company's fourth privately-owned undersea data cable, which transport 98% of international internet traffic around the world.
…
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-57713168
Why Bude?
Google says: The location of Bude was chosen because it was "an ideal, nicely protected beach and adjacent to a lot of the terrestrial infrastructure needed", she added.
I say:
GCHQ
Why Texas cannot declare an ‘invasion’ at the border
…
But this is a Texas-sized bad idea. There are legal and practical reasons why states cannot take immigration matters into their own hands. It is well-settled law that immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the federal government. There is no getting around this, so any plan like Abbott’s will only result in wasteful lawsuits. Plus, using words like “invasion” when discussing migration is divisive and puts Latinos and immigrants at risk.
Former Trump administration officials say Abbott could declare an invasion by invoking two clauses in the Constitution. One clause says that the U.S. government shall protect states from invasion, while another says states cannot engage in war except when “actually invaded.”
If this legal rationale seems convoluted, that’s because it is.
As recently as 2012, in the case arising from Arizona’s “papers, please” law, the Supreme Court affirmed that states cannot set immigration policy. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration … but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. Other immigration lawsuits by states relying on the “invasion clause” have likewise failed in lower courts. Were Abbott to declare an invasion, his plan would be struck down by the courts as well.
In the meantime, such a proposal could expose state law enforcement officials to criminal liability. “There are federal laws that law enforcement can be prosecuted under if they were to take someone without authority and immediately return them across the border,” Abbott himself said in an April news conference. He’s right. Besides, any state action on immigration would likely run counter to the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law.
…
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3477083-why-texas-cannot-declare-an-invasion-at-the-border/
It's old news that was discussed at the time, anon, but it seemed pertinent to post it again at this time, with what's going on. That is one critial internet pipe…esp for the spooks.