The 'Muslims shouldn't be in Congress' debate: '07

[UConn James]

and the invading Muslim horde.

 

Freedom of religion (as long as you're a Christian).

 

Could someone remind Virgil that Ellison was, in fact, democratically elected? And that taking the oath has no formal rules for hand placement on inanimate objects, biblical or no?

 

This is a sorry state of affairs for the GOP and what they've become and how the national party left me behind about 10 years ago. Flag-burning, gay-baiting and Grade-A bigotry is about all they have left.

[Ramius]

This was the last thing Ellison needed right now. It obviously affected his game against the titans yesterday.

[Bungee Jumper]

and the invading Muslim horde.

 

Freedom of religion (as long as you're a Christian).

 

Could someone remind Virgil that Ellison was, in fact, democratically elected? And that taking the oath has no formal rules for hand placement on inanimate objects, biblical or no?

 

This is a sorry state of affairs for the GOP and what they've become and how the national party left me behind about 10 years ago. Flag-burning, gay-baiting and Grade-A bigotry is about all they have left.

877895[/snapback]

 

Retarded. Forget the bigotry, forget the democratic process. The guy's bitching about immigration reform because an American-born Congressman is a convert to Islam.

 

I remember, way back when in my logic classes in college, we had a word for this kind of reasoning. It was called "bull sh--".

[RkFast]

and the invading Muslim horde.

 

Freedom of religion (as long as you're a Christian).

 

Could someone remind Virgil that Ellison was, in fact, democratically elected? And that taking the oath has no formal rules for hand placement on inanimate objects, biblical or no?

 

This is a sorry state of affairs for the GOP and what they've become and how the national party left me behind about 10 years ago. Flag-burning, gay-baiting and Grade-A bigotry is about all they have left.

877895[/snapback]

 

Nice to paint the whole GOP with one brush! Maybe I should look at someone like Ted Kennedy and say the entire left is a bunch of half-Communist, drunken losers who down Chivas by the gallon?

 

On the issue, while I think Virgil is getting off track here, his argument to stop Ellison has some SERIOUS weight behind it.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=53241

 

 

The first Muslim member of Congress is linked to a radical Islamic school of thought that requires loyalty to the Quran over the U.S. Constitution, WND has learned.

 

Rep.-elect Keith (Hakim-Mohammed) Ellison, D-Minn., has drawn fire for asking to take the constitutional oath on the Quran rather than the Bible at a swearing-in ceremony next month.

 

The Constitution specifies that members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the constitutional law of the land. In the oath, Ellison will be required to swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

 

Critics argue he has conflicting loyalties, while Ellison insists he's a patriot.

 

But within days of being elected, Ellison held a workshop on politics for a group closely affiliated with a radical Islamic school that preaches no Muslim can pledge loyalty to the Constitution or make laws outside the laws of the Quran, which the school's leaders assert is the "supreme law" of the land, trumping all man-made laws including the U.S. Constitution........................

 

......American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran.

 

"There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate.

 

"No one can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept legislation that is contrary to that divine law," Idris adds. "Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption."

 

Conversely, laws prohibiting polygamy and domestic violence also violate the Quran.

 

Further, he maintains that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and still be a Muslim.

 

THOSE are the guys Ellison is in bed with. People with those beliefs. So dont come here with your "racist" placard and sream without reading WHY people might fear what Ellison is up to.

 

NOW...word is that Ellison's swearing with the Quran is ceremonial ONLY and he will take his "REAL" oath with the Holy bible. Fine. That ends that.

 

Either way, you have to wonder what a member of Congress is doing rubbing elbows with people who seek to turn the USA into an Islamic State and a Caliphate.

[UConn James]

Nice to paint the whole GOP with one brush! Maybe I should look at someone like Ted Kennedy and say the entire left is a bunch of half-Communist, drunken losers who down Chivas by the gallon?

 

On the issue, while I think Virgil is getting off track here, his argument to stop Ellison has some SERIOUS weight behind it.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=53241

878235[/snapback]

 

You're actually using the word "serious" when describing WND?

 

And, you really only need one brush to paint the national parties. If the GOP actually wanted to be taken seriously rather than play to their Crazy-Baptist-Minister base, they would have come up with something better than the output of the 109th Congress. That this comes from the state where George Allen thought he could get some chuckles and pick up votes by being for macaca before he was against it doesn't surprise me. Virgil's crap has been floating for a couple of weeks now, and the right is dead silent.

 

NOW...word is that Ellison's swearing with the Quran is ceremonial ONLY and he will take his "REAL" oath with the Holy bible. Fine. That ends that.

 

Not what I heard.... And so what? The very-same Bible most Congresscritters take their oaths on has a passage that mandates they must kill any person who works on Sunday, among other niceities.

[RkFast]

You're actually using the word "serious" when describing WND?

 

And, you really only need one brush to paint the national parties. If the GOP actually wanted to be taken seriously rather than play to their Crazy-Baptist-Minister base, they would have come up with something better than the output of the 109th Congress. That this comes from the state where George Allen thought he could get some chuckles and pick up votes by being for macaca before he was against it doesn't surprise me. Virgil's crap has been floating for a couple of weeks now, and the right is dead silent.

Not what I heard.... And so what? The very-same Bible most Congresscritters take their oaths on has a passage that mandates they must kill any person who works on Sunday, among other niceities.

878252[/snapback]

 

So you just skimmed over the crux of the whole thing....Ellison's involvement with a radical anti-American group looking to turn the USA into an Islamic state....and then spin that to......George Allen.

 

Very nice...Go read Daily Kos.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Nice to paint the whole GOP with one brush! Maybe I should look at someone like Ted Kennedy and say the entire left is a bunch of half-Communist, drunken losers who down Chivas by the gallon?

 

On the issue, while I think Virgil is getting off track here, his argument to stop Ellison has some SERIOUS weight behind it.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=53241

 

 

The first Muslim member of Congress is linked to a radical Islamic school of thought that requires loyalty to the Quran over the U.S. Constitution, WND has learned.

 

Rep.-elect Keith (Hakim-Mohammed) Ellison, D-Minn., has drawn fire for asking to take the constitutional oath on the Quran rather than the Bible at a swearing-in ceremony next month.

 

The Constitution specifies that members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the constitutional law of the land. In the oath, Ellison will be required to swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

 

Critics argue he has conflicting loyalties, while Ellison insists he's a patriot.

 

But within days of being elected, Ellison held a workshop on politics for a group closely affiliated with a radical Islamic school that preaches no Muslim can pledge loyalty to the Constitution or make laws outside the laws of the Quran, which the school's leaders assert is the "supreme law" of the land, trumping all man-made laws including the U.S. Constitution........................

 

......American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran.

 

"There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate.

 

"No one can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept legislation that is contrary to that divine law," Idris adds. "Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption."

 

Conversely, laws prohibiting polygamy and domestic violence also violate the Quran.

 

Further, he maintains that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and still be a Muslim.

 

THOSE are the guys Ellison is in bed with. People with those beliefs. So dont come here with your "racist" placard and sream without reading WHY people might fear what Ellison is up to.

 

NOW...word is that Ellison's swearing with the Quran is ceremonial ONLY and he will take his "REAL" oath with the Holy bible. Fine. That ends that.

 

Either way, you have to wonder what a member of Congress is doing rubbing elbows with people who seek to turn the USA into an Islamic State and a Caliphate.

878235[/snapback]

1) The swearing-in ceremony where the Bible is traditionally used is not an OFFICIAL ceremony and has nothing to do with the duties of the elected official. It's a ceremony period.

2) Read this (bolded for emphasis):

DECEMBER 21, 2006,  9:50 PM

Lone Muslim Congressman Speaks Out

By KATE PHILLIPS

 

In an interview late this afternoon in CNN's Situation Room with Wolf

Blitzer , the incoming Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the

first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives, talked about his

reaction to the objections by Representative Virgil Goode , Republican

of Virginia, to his election and decision to take his oath of office

by swearing on the Koran.

 

Mr. Ellison: Well, what I'd tell him is that, you know, there might be

a few things about Muslims that he might want to know. He might want

to know that Muslims, there are about five million in the country,

that they're here to support and strengthen America, that they are

nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids who just want to live and

prosper in the American way, and that there's really nothing to fear,

and that all of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he's

opposed to, which is the terrorists.

 

And so there's nothing for him to be afraid of, and that what we

should do is to tell our constituents that we should reach to each

other, not be against each other, and we should find ways for common

ground.

 

I would urge Congressman Goode to have his congregation reach out to a

synagogue or a mosque and start some interfaith dialogue so that we

can increase understanding among each other, as Americans of different

faiths. That's what I'd tell him.

 

Mr. Blitzer: Do you think he's a bigot?

 

Mr. Ellison: You know what? I don't know the fellow. And, you know,

I'd rather just say that he has a lot to learn about Islam. And, you

know, we all have a lot to learn. I don't know him. I look forward to

meeting him. I'm not afraid of being frank about my views about him,

but I simply haven't gotten a chance to get to meet him so I don't

want to start any name calling.

 

Asked by Mr. Blitzer what he thought of the reaction to his election,

and to his swearing-in preference, Mr. Ellison said:

 

Well, Wolf, I'm glad you made that distinction because when I'm

officially sworn in, I will do it the same, exact way as every

Congressperson-elect who is sworn in. We will all stand up and, in

unison, lift our hand and swear to uphold that Constitution.

 

And then later, in a private ceremony, of course, I'll put my hand on

a book that is the basis of my faith, which is Islam. And I think that

this is a beauty. This is a wonderful thing for our country, because

Jewish members will put their hands on the Torah, Mormon members will

put their hand on the Book of Mormon, Catholic members will put their

hand on the book of their choice. And members who don't want to put

their hand on any book are also fully free to do that. That's the

American way.

But I think that we need to not focus on what religious text any

Congress member might want to use. Let's focus on the text that binds

us together. That's the Constitution. That's a great document, and I'm

looking forward very much to raising my hand and swear to uphold that

Constitution.

Mr. Blitzer: So when you hear comments like Virgil Goode's, I suppose

— you've reacted in all of your public statements, as well as here,

really taking the high road, but I assume inside, it's really

irritating you.

 

Mr. Ellison: Well, Wolf, you know, my reaction, externally and

internally is the same. I can honestly say that I'm not angered by

Representative Goode's comments. I just think it's a learning gap we

have to close.

 

And he and Mr. Blitzer reminded everyone that Mr. Ellison was born in

Michigan, converted to Islam in the 1970s while in college, and traced

his ancestors back to Louisiana, from 1742. "I'm about as American as

they come," Mr. Ellison said.

Also note that noted member of the "liberal media" , Wolf Blitzer tried to bait Ellison into badmouthing Goode and Ellison refused to do so, and with eloquence. But of course, Ellison is just an evil Muslim who follows the the "so-called religion of peace."

 

Come on. What Goode said was 1) stupid, 2) logically a preposterous argument -- linking an American-born citizen who converted to Islam to illegal immigration and terrorism, and 3) unbefitting a representative of this country, unless you really want to buy BJ's argument that we're deserving idiots.

 

If stuff like this doesn't go criticized, heavily, we're in worse shape than he may think. Goode's free to say this stuff, but he looks the stupider for it.

[RkFast]

1) The swearing-in ceremony where the Bible is traditionally used is not an OFFICIAL ceremony and has nothing to do with the duties of the elected official.  It's a ceremony period.

2) Read this (bolded for emphasis):

 

Also note that noted member of the "liberal media"    , Wolf Blitzer tried to bait Ellison into badmouthing Goode and Ellison refused to do so, and with eloquence.  But of course, Ellison is just an evil Muslim who follows the the "so-called religion of peace."

 

Come on.  What Goode said was 1) stupid, 2) logically a preposterous argument -- linking an American-born citizen who converted to Islam to illegal immigration and terrorism, and 3) unbefitting a representative of this country, unless you really want to buy BJ's argument that we're deserving idiots.

 

If stuff like this doesn't go criticized, heavily, we're in worse shape than he may think.  Goode's free to say this stuff, but he looks the stupider for it.

878329[/snapback]

 

But when the left gets in a whole-hog panic over Bush shaking hands with someone from A Christian group, thats "different"?

 

Thanks for clarifying the "swearing in" procedure for me.

 

However, youve got you hear WAY up your ass if you think those "peaceful Muslims" from places like the America Open University are innocent people.

 

And QUITE funny and hypocitical (as usual) that the left gets in a total tizzy because Bush and many on the right run with their Christian base. But when one of their own does the exact same thing...and with grouops MUCH worse than Robertson and Dobson...its "ok." And...as usual....those who point it out the hypocirisy are "racist" and "intolerant."

[RuntheDamnBall]

But when the left gets in a whole-hog panic over Bush shaking hands with someone from A Christian group, thats "different"?

 

Thanks for clarifying the "swearing in" procedure for me.

 

However, youve got you hear WAY up your ass if you think those "peaceful Muslims" from places like the America Open University are innocent people.

 

And QUITE funny and hypocitical (as usual) that the left gets in a total tizzy because Bush and many on the right run with their Christian base. But when one of their own  does the exact same thing...and with grouops MUCH worse than Robertson and Dobson...its "ok." And...as usual....those who point it out the hypocirisy are "racist" and "intolerant."

878351[/snapback]

Who's getting in a whole-hog panic? Looks to me like Goode is. He's the guy using faulty logic to perform a character assassination of an American-born and raised citizen by equating him with illegal immigrants and terrorists. To me, no strong religious element should be a controlling factor in our day-to-day political society. That Ellison 'met with' (meaning spoke to) the North American Imams Federation -- not the AOU -- and may have talked with the AOU's leader should not imply he agrees with him, and you know this. WND is taking this meeting and turning it into something more than it is, unless they have his speech documented or any follow-up discussion with Ellison regarding the alleged meeting with this guy. As it is, their shoddy-ass 'journalism' includes little-to-no direct quotation from Ellison himself. It's a classic tactic of character assassination: make loose, shadowy connections look more connected than they are, deny the subject a voice in the article, and you can paint the picture as you see it. WND also has a real nice op-ed column on there about how Ellison is not fit to be a congressman.

 

Don Rumsfeld 'met' with Saddam Hussein, and Bush meets with Dobson, but I'm not automatically asserting that they shared the same views or were even sympathetic to each other. You assess someone based on their actions. And so far, Ellison's actions have been statesmanlike and his words indicate that he plans to legislate as a US Congressman who has respect for this country's diverse religious traditions. If he proves otherwise, you can bet in a minute he'll be gone.

[Johnny Coli]

Maybe I should look at someone like Ted Kennedy and say the entire left is a bunch of half-Communist, drunken losers who down Chivas by the gallon?

878235[/snapback]

Some of us are actually full-on Commies and prefer cheap beer.

 

Just trying to set the record straight and in no way am I trying to sidetrack your bigotry and paranoid hyper-nationalism.

[RkFast]

Some of us are actually full-on Commies and prefer cheap beer.

 

Just trying to set the record straight and in no way am I trying to sidetrack your bigotry and paranoid hyper-nationalism.

 

Im a "bigot" and a "paranoid hyper-nationalist" because Im concerned about a group of people whose agenda includes undermining the United States Constitution.

 

Whatever, dude.....whatever.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Im a "bigot" and a "paranoid hyper-nationalist" because Im concerned about a group of people whose agenda includes undermining the United States Constitution.

You can certainly be concerned about that, and should probably be equally if not more concerned about those on the Christian right who are looking to restrict our freedoms in similar, if slightly less draconian ways.

 

However, being concerned about Ellison's 'connection' to this group based on this sole article is more than a little wacky.

[RkFast]

Who's getting in a whole-hog panic? Looks to me like Goode is. He's the guy using faulty logic to perform a character assassination of an American-born and raised citizen by equating him with illegal immigrants and terrorists. To me, no strong religious element should be a controlling factor in our day-to-day political society. That Ellison 'met with' (meaning spoke to) the North American Imams Federation -- not the AOU -- and may have talked with the AOU's leader should not imply he agrees with him, and you know this. WND is taking this meeting and turning it into something more than it is, unless they have his speech documented or any follow-up discussion with Ellison regarding the alleged meeting with this guy. As it is, their shoddy-ass 'journalism' includes little-to-no direct quotation from Ellison himself. It's a classic tactic of character assassination: make loose, shadowy connections look more connected than they are, deny the subject a voice in the article, and you can paint the picture as you see it. WND also has a real nice op-ed column on there about how Ellison is not fit to be a congressman.

 

Don Rumsfeld 'met' with Saddam Hussein, and Bush meets with Dobson, but I'm not automatically asserting that they shared the same views or were even sympathetic to each other. You assess someone based on their actions. And so far, Ellison's actions have been statesmanlike and his words indicate that he plans to legislate as a US Congressman who has respect for this country's diverse religious traditions. If he proves otherwise, you can bet in a minute he'll be gone.

 

Good post. I accept that.

 

Goode is a schmuck. But like we all get the jitters when Tommy Dobson rubs elbows with the GOP, we all should have serious concerns when the AOU tries to muscle its way into politics. The ACLU is even worse. The bulk of ACLU funding is completely anonymous. So there are totally anonymous sources funing an ogranization that is hugely powerful and is working HARD to change the American culture and landscape. Call me nuts, but Id like to know WHO these people are who are doing this.

 

Its bad enough the lobbyists and trade unions and professional organizations have the power they do in DC. But when radical organizations of ANY stripe and shadowdy groups of "anonymous" people get in through the back door and weild influence and power, we got a problem on our hands.

[X. Benedict]

Good post. I accept that.

 

Goode is a schmuck. But like we all get the jitters when Tommy Dobson rubs elbows with the GOP, we all should have serious concerns when the AOU tries to muscle its way into politics. The ACLU is even worse. The bulk of ACLU funding is completely anonymous. So there are totally anonymous sources funing an ogranization that is hugely powerful and is working HARD to change the American culture and landscape. Call me nuts, but Id like to know WHO these people are who are doing this.

 

Its bad enough the lobbyists and trade unions and professional organizations have the power they do in DC. But when radical organizations of ANY stripe and shadowdy groups of "anonymous" people get in through the back door and weild influence and power, we got a problem on our hands.

 

I actually think the ACLU has been good for the country. Their power - if it is to be called that - is a consistent record of striking down poor lawmaking. This, if anything, puts the onus on lawmakers to craft better laws or to at least insist upon jurisprudence. I am not a member - but they seem no more powerful to me than the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute that actually lobby for laws.

 

*Lobby is probably the wrong word. Help craft laws is more what I am going for.

[RkFast]

I actually think the ACLU has been good for the country. Their power - if it is to be called that - is a consistent record of striking down poor lawmaking. This, if anything, puts the onus on lawmakers to craft better laws or to at least insist upon jurisprudence. I am not a member - but they seem no more powerful to me than the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute that actually lobby for laws.

 

*Lobby is probably the wrong word. Help craft laws is more what I am going for.

 

The ACLU WAS a good organization. Now, its got a radical agenda and will wield its power and bully people and local municipalities and organizations such as school districts that dont go along with it. When they go to a town like Hazleton, PA and go to the mayor and say "we will BANKRUPT you if you dont go along with us", thats downright chilling. The l;ast group to use tactics like that all had names which eneded in vowels and hung out in coffee houses in downtown NYC. And when such a group is funded by completely anonymous sources? Wow.

[X. Benedict]

The ACLU WAS a good organization. Now, its got a radical agenda and will wield its power and bully people and local municipalities and organizations such as school districts that dont go along with it. When they go to a town like Hazleton, PA and go to the mayor and say "we will BANKRUPT you if you dont go along with us", thats downright chilling. The l;ast group to use tactics like that all had names which eneded in vowels and hung out in coffee houses in downtown NYC. And when such a group is funded by completely anonymous sources? Wow.

 

A town stupid enough to pass that act is probably dumb enough to go bankrupt defending it.

But the bankruptcy thing is no different than what Industrial companies, and Walmarts do to towns all over america. They have the deeper pockets for litigation.

The ACLU is probably sponsoring the lawsuit, but usually their are multiple plaintiffs and aggrieved parties to the suit. They are picking the ones that have what they believe, clear constitutional grounds to be overturned.

 

Now if Hazleton passed their law - it is likely that 20 other municipalities have passed something like it, because that is usually what town boards do. Though it is likely that somebody other than the mayor of Hazleton wrote this law - if it is dumb and unconstitutional - they are dumb asses twice over for passing the thing over the advice of their city attorney.

[Orton's Arm]

A town stupid enough to pass that act is probably dumb enough to go bankrupt defending it.

But the bankruptcy thing is no different than what Industrial companies, and Walmarts do to towns all over america. They have the deeper pockets for litigation.

The ACLU is probably sponsoring the lawsuit, but usually their are multiple plaintiffs and aggrieved parties to the suit. They are picking the ones that have what they believe, clear constitutional grounds to be overturned.

 

Now if Hazleton passed their law - it is likely that 20 other municipalities have passed something like it, because that is usually what town boards do. Though it is likely that somebody other than the mayor of Hazleton wrote this law - if it is dumb and unconstitutional - they are dumb asses twice over for passing the thing over the advice of their city attorney.

Yes, it's ridiculous that the town of Hazelton actually cares about upholding U.S. immigration law. What's this world coming to?

[Bungee Jumper]

Yes, it's ridiculous that the town of Hazelton actually cares about upholding U.S. immigration law. What's this world coming to?

 

It's not any locality's responsibility to enforce federal law, numbskull.

[RkFast]

More on this issue. Ellison needs to explain his position....clearly.

 

Ellison said these words at a convention hosted by the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America. According to a 2004 Chicago Tribune article, “A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America,” the Muslim American Society was founded in 1993 as the United States arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian based terror group that has spawned both Hamas and Al-Qaeda. MAS members now maintain that the group has no ties to the Brotherhood, but there are indications that many in the group want to see the U.S. Constitution replaced by Islamic law. “We may all feel emotionally attached to the goal of an Islamic state” in America, said a speaker at a 2002 MAS conference, but “we mustn’t cross hurdles we can’t jump yet.” The Muslim American Society’s chapter for Ellison’s home state of Minnesota hosts a website that offers in an “Online Library” texts by the jihad theorists Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb. Qutb in his jihad manifesto Milestones asserts that “Islam is the way of life ordained by God for all mankind, and this way establishes the Lordship of God alone -- that is, the sovereignty of God – and orders practical life in all its daily details. Jihaad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world.” Likewise, according to terror expert Steven Emerson, the Islamic Circle of North America “is a Jamad Islamia group, which is on record as calling for jihad in the United States, to promote the notion of an Islamic world. ICNA also published something very recently saying that they are against suicide bombings, except when it comes to killing Israelis.”

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[/dev/null]

It's not any locality's responsibility to enforce federal law, numbskull.

Most state/local governments will be more than happy to enforce federal law if the feds provide adequate funding (enough to cover the costs plus enough extra to skim)