Gov. Greg Abbott says Texas will not allow foreign adversaries to purchase land in the state, pointing to laws he signed restricting land purchases by entities tied to China, Russia and Iran. Abbott called allowing such purchases “crazy” and said Texas will put national security first.

Why does he have mosques everywhere then?

Only Indians are allowed to buy land in Texas.

It he allows Muslims to take over 😂 and people sit there and believe this nonsense from these politicians smh

It’s wild that this even has to be a debate in the first place, of course we shouldn't be selling out our own country to people who want to see us fail so honestly good on Texas for actually stepping up.

This is Texas btw

Fuck off zio-traitor.

Now do something about the Islamic invasion.

Foreign ownership of strategically important U.S. land has become a major national-security issue across the country. Texas is taking a restrictive approach.

I’ll wait . @GregAbbott_TX @GovAbbottPress

Hes so full of shit

Gov. Greg Abbott doesn't consider Israel a foreign adversary.

But they’ll allow Muslims to take it over. Go figure.

"China, Russia, and Iran" But Indians and jews are free to take whatever they want in Texas.

Must be election season… this idiot should have done this a century ago.

Contradictory news out of Little India this AM

Then why has it been happening for years?

But he will believe foreign propaganda

Here’s the problem nobody wants to talk about: at some point, Texas has to move on from Greg Abbott. This isn’t even about whether you’re a Republican or Democrat. Abbott has been in Texas state government since the 1990s. He’s been Governor since 2015, he’s running for a fourth term, and Texas has no gubernatorial term limits. So when does it end? Another four years? Another eight? Another twelve? The bigger problem is what happens when one politician becomes so dominant within his own party that there is no realistic path for a new generation of serious candidates to replace him. If Abbott keeps running, what serious Republican with ambitions of becoming governor is going to voluntarily take on a powerful incumbent? That’s the trap. And here’s another question voters should be asking after more than a decade under the same governor: At what point does an incumbent have to own the condition of the state he’s been governing? You can’t indefinitely campaign as the person who’s going to “fix Texas” without voters eventually asking why those problems still exist after years under your leadership. If a problem developed or worsened while you were governor, voters should ask what you did about it and whether your policies worked. If you’re campaigning on a new crisis, voters should ask whether the crisis actually exists at the scale being claimed and demand evidence. And if your explanation is that the other side prevented you from solving something, voters should look at who actually held the constitutional and legislative power to act rather than simply accepting partisan finger-pointing. At some point, governing has to become about results, not identifying another political enemy to blame. That’s especially important in Texas because the governor isn’t powerless. The governor can sign or veto legislation, make major appointments, recommend policies, call special legislative sessions and—during those special sessions—determine which subjects lawmakers are permitted to consider. So after years in office, the question shouldn’t simply be, “Who’s stopping you?” It should also be: “You’ve been in charge for more than a decade. What did you fix? What didn’t you fix? Why didn’t you fix it? And what exactly are you proposing to do differently with another four years that you couldn’t do with the years you’ve already had?” You can be a lifelong conservative and still believe elected officials should eventually have to answer those questions. And that’s why this eventually becomes bigger than party. If an incumbent keeps winning his party’s nomination for as long as he wants the job, the only ways to create an open governor’s race are for him to voluntarily leave or eventually lose an election. Once the office is open, everything changes. Suddenly Republicans have a wide-open primary. New conservative leaders can run. Democrats have their candidates. Independents can compete. Texans get new people, new ideas and new approaches instead of another election centered around the same individual. And if Texans don’t like the person they elect? Four years later, elect somebody else. That’s democracy. Nobody is saying Texas has to permanently belong to one political party. The point is exactly the opposite: Texas shouldn’t belong to ANY politician. Someone born in the 1990s shouldn’t be looking toward the 2030s wondering whether the same man who has occupied Texas state government for essentially their entire conscious life is still going to be governor. Eventually leadership has to turn over. Eventually another generation has to get its opportunity. Greg Abbott has already spent decades in Texas government. At some point Texans have to decide whether elections are about keeping one individual in power for as long as he wants the job—or periodically opening the door for somebody new. Because if the answer every four years is simply “he’s our party’s guy,” then there’s effectively no expiration date.

Whole texas has been taken over by jihadis & indians.

BS. H1-B Indians own all of the land now.

Who were the dancing Israelis of 9/11

[Laughing in India]

Oh, what a radical concept: not selling our actual dirt to countries that actively want us gone. Next, you'll tell me we should protect our borders too. Crazy Texas, putting America first! 🇺🇸😂 #GodBlessTexas #AmericaFirst

Oh sure

🐴💩

Gov. Greg Abbot followed up with clarification that he wasn’t talking about convenience stores. Those don’t count…….obviously.

Does not apply to Israel…..🌚

🤡💩

Meanwhile he allows mosques 💀

Throw this mf in a landfill wheel chair and all

The rolling globalist lying soulless