I believe the great Nelson Muntz said it best when he said: "Hah-hah!"

Good.

This is Lively reporting from sunny central Florida.

HOORAY!

chalk one up for common sense

It would have been just too easy for her to ask for a non-photo driver's license...

...but I would encourage her to cover that fugly puss of her's at every opportunity!

I imagine the appeal is already filed. samll victory but a victory none the less.

I don't know that radical Islam lost but it is clear that common sense prevailed.

Same thing.

Robert: that was the same troll again.

ULULULULULULULULU!

In honor of NC's comment yesterday -

ULULULULULULULULULULULULULU!

too bad for Sultana...

why not apply in Saudi Arabia? Oh, never mind...

I'm still wondering how showing her face would violate her Islamic faith... I thought that it was a regional thing.

Egggsellent!
-CM Burns

When it is appealed (and it will be), wait til it gets to the Florida Supreme Court. Talk about a Kangaroo court, those nuts will turn this case on its head.

TV (Harry)

There was no doubt in my mind about the result, based on the law (although Florida courts have been known to ignore the law before).

Individual liberties can be restricted based on the needs of the state. We have freedom of speech, but the state can restrict me from saying obscenities on the radio, or wallpapering my car with sexually graphic photos, because of the state's need to protect the public's virgin eyes and ears. Freedom of religion can be restricted if such religion calls for eating magic mushrooms, because of the state's need to ban controlled substances. We have the right to bear arms, but the state can restrict us from having automatic weapons based on the need to fight crime and protect its citizens.

In this case, the needs of the state clearly outweighed the religious freedom of Miss Potatosack. The state needs to be able to identify a driver of a vehicle for many reasons. There is no other reasonable way to make such identification. She can be accomodated by having a woman take her photo. Her DL can stay in her purse so her uncovered face won't be seen in public. On balance she loses.

If she wants to take her license picture with her vail on, tell her to move to Suadia Arabia!

Oh wait, I almost forgot, she wouldn't even be able to drive a car in Saudia Arabia, the center of the Muslim world, where the two holiest muslim cities lie. These people are a joke.

As gameshows would play when someone lost the 'final round' ...

WAH - WHa - Wha - whaaahhh

No make like a raisin, Sultanna, and desicate!

#14 Harry

Currently true. But Jeb's already replaced one retired judge... just a matter of time.

Wait till till the Pinko Supreme Court in Florida gets the case. Don't be too happy yet.

Anyone read Krauthammer's latest article?
It's excellent.

Shades of Oslo
by Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
June 6, 2003

Let's be plain about what happened at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The president of the United States put his prestige on the line for the sake of Arab-Israeli peace and the Arab states gave him nothing.

They did not take a single concrete action, not even a gesture, toward Israel. And most important, the Arab states refused what Bush most desperately wanted: explicit endorsement of the American view that Yasser Arafat's time had come and passed.

Then on to the second summit at Aqaba, Jordan.
Here, Bush managed to extract enormous concessions from Israel.
He explicitly recognized the legitimacy of a Palestinian state. He further recognized that the state would need to be "contiguous," which instantly conceded to the Palestinians most of the territories in the West Bank and Gaza. And even more painful for Sharon was his statement, largely overlooked, that "no unilateral actions by any party can prejudge the outcome of our negotiations." ("Unilateral actions" is Middle East-speak for settlements, which means that in drawing the final border between Israel and Palestine, Jewish settlements would be of no account.)

This is a serious moving of the goal posts. What did Bush get out of Abbas? Did Abbas recognize Israel as a Jewish state? No. He refused to give up the Palestinian principle of "return," which means eradicating Israel by flooding it with millions of Palestinian refugees (most of whom, by the way, have never lived in Israel). Yet without recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, there is nothing to prevent the disaster of Camp David 2000, when Arafat, after pocketing truly astonishing Israeli concessions, insisted at the last minute that there would be no deal unless Israel agreed to commit suicide by allowing the refugees to move to Israel, instead of to their homeland of Palestine.

What did Abbas offer? An end to terrorism. Fine. But until the lip service is carried out, this is nothing but a restatement of the famous letter from Arafat to Yitzhak Rabin -- September 1993 -- in which he pledged that "the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence."

At Aqaba, Abbas recognized Israel. So did Arafat pretend to 10 years ago in the first line of the Oslo agreement.

Abbas pledged there will be no more incitement of hatred against Israel -- another repetition of another Oslo pledge. The Palestinians then spent the next decade poisoning their children with the worst anti-Semitic propaganda since the Third Reich.

What then happened at Aqaba? Israel bought the same rug a second time.

In 1993, it bought supposed recognition, a supposed end to violence and a supposed end to incitement by recognizing the PLO, bringing Arafat and his terrorists out of Tunis, planting them in the heart of Palestine, giving them control of all the major Palestinian cities, outfitting his army with Israeli rifles, etc.

In 2003 the rug was sold again, this time fetching Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian state with contiguous borders in which Israeli settlements are uprooted. This might be the outline of the final settlement. But these were concessions given away before the negotiations even began .

The unilateral surrender of Israel continues.

Now, forcing the unilateral surrender of Israel might be a policy, if it promised peace. But the first round of unilateral concessions, from 1993 to 2000, yielded nothing but the establishment of a terror base in Palestine -- a "Trojan horse," as Faisal Husseini called it, from which the bloodiest Palestinian violence has been launched.

There is only one hope that we will not repeat that doleful experiment. And that is if Bush is serious -- as President Clinton was not -- about requiring more than just words from the Palestinians. Abbas must end the incitement, stop the violence and disarm the terrorists. Bush, having taken his friend Sharon to the cleaners, needs now to make sure that Abbas keeps his word.

Could THIS be the reason she wanted to stay covered?

HA!

[Link: www.thesmokinggun.com...]

Interesting though, the Fox News story reported that:

Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail said arrangements can be made to have Freeman photographed only with women present to allay her concerns about modesty.

Why that extra step? Heck, doesn't that too interfere with the First Amendment (you do remember the 1st don't you) by providing an accomodation not present for other religious groups? Vail should have not said anything rather than feed the trolls.

Turns out the Florida woman who is suing for the right to wear a Muslim headdress in a driver's license photograph has previously been subjected to an, um, unveiled government portrait. Following her 1997 conversion to Islam, Sultaana Freeman (formerly Sandra Keller) was arrested in Decatur, Illinois for battering a foster child. Freeman, 35, pleaded guilty in 1999 to felony aggravated battery and was sentenced to 18 months probation. As a result of the conviction, state officials removed two foster children from Freeman's care. The mug shot of the felonious Freeman (below left) was taken after her arrest in the Illinois case. Freeman returned to the dock this week--that's her testifying in the below right photo--to challenge Florida rules requiring prospective drivers to submit to unveiled photos for their licenses. Last year, Freeman sued the state after her license was revoked when she failed to allow officials to photograph her sans headdress. State officials contend that, in light of the September 11 attacks, it is crucial that all motorists now be photographed in an unadorned state.

[Link: www.thesmokinggun.com...]

"In another disturbing twist in this story, four years ago Freeman's husband Mark (photo right) was caught with fake IDs bearing his photograph and other people's names. When asked about that, Freeman tried to hide behind a veil of secrecy. Illinois Police found the fake ID's after they arrested Freeman for recklessly firing a gun while he was wearing his Muslim garb.

Police had to get a search warrant to enter his home for their investigation. He told them he could not let them in because they were not of the Muslim faith."

[Link: www.wftv.com...]

So, does this mean that she's still allowed to beat up foster children?

Whaaat...!
"Common Sense" prevails in the Florida justice system?.

Next "Florida" will deal with their "child abusers"

Wait! They just did!

[Link: www.lizziegrubman.com...]

After hearing three days of testimony last week, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled that Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.

Sounds like a hollow victory to me. Shouldn't it have been "SF's right to freely exercise her religion does not require the state to change to accomodate her desires?"

Perhaps the next attempt to get some Muslim headgear into a Florida driver's license photo will come from this little lady.

Well I guess that blows someone else's theory on not following the speed limits because it against their religion. DARN I wanted to be a member of that one :)

people who abuse children are the lowest scum. no second chances on that offense. she is and always will be scum whether she wears a sack or not; whether she is muslim or not. (I guess I would want to wear sack too if I had been convicted of child abuse.) btw, the legal issue was never in any real doubt. we have a long history of requiring all religions to conform to settled law. (in this regard we need a "loser pays costs" rule in USA like in England) anyhow, by no means imagineable is she motivated by any concept of piety. she's just a jerk. besides, although not of any precedential value here, I read somewhere that all muslim countries either require that the female's face be exposed on ids and drivers' licenses or they do not permit driving by females at all. while I'm ranting, can anyone explain to me how the leftists can justify or reconcile their love of islamofacists with the latter's unabashed denial of women's rights?

If she gets a license showing her face, that solves the i.d. problem, but I gotta ask: Is she allowed to drive while wearing that thing? How on earth can she see adequately to operate a motor vehicle? Isn't it likely that she would refuse to remove it if she is stopped or has an accident?

All she has to do is take her case to the ninth circut court in San Fran - When they are done with it, people won't even have to be present to get a Drivers License.

Thank god they got this one right. Nobody should be able to cover their face on a photo id for any reason whatsoever.

Now they are thinking of giving illeagal immigrants license to drive in California.

#4 Laurelin

Florida only issues non-photo license to military and ex-pats, who have adequate photo ID, such as military ID or passports. The issue of her opposition to photos - "graven images" - was raised at trial, even though she hypocritically had her picture taken for the license in the abaya (sp?) prior to 9/11. Does it cease being a "graven image" when you're in disguise?

#31

Licenses never stop illegals from driving, believe me I know.

CAIR and Co. are sure to fight this into the Supreme Court. Now, I guess that this suicide bomber will have to walk to beat up her kids.

ALLAH AKHBAR!!!

Just idle curiousity here -- why is it OK for her eyes to be seen (by infidels, no less), but not OK for her nose or cheeks, etc. The whole thing seems symptomatic of a cult, rather than a major religion.

Next wreck she's in, I wonder how quickly the lawsuit will be filed claiming that wearing the burkha contributed. PDQ, I suspect. Wonder what her insurance company thinks of this?

With the battle lines that have been drawn, this decision went the correct way. It may be a small victory, but it is much better than having the decision go the other way.

Someone suggested that they just use her mug shot when she was arrested for child abuse.

The US has gone after elements of other religions inimicable to the best interests of the State many times before. It never bought into the Rasta's sacred right to Ganga. Nor tolerated the Mormon's poligamy practices. Nor gave Catholics a plate at the front table until the Catholics proved greater loyalty to the US than the Pope. It has taken away kids of religious fanatics when their practices endanger the children's medical needs. America has gone after & killed adherents of a religion in direct opposition to the US before - the Ghost Dancers. It has used agents and law enforcement to go after cults or groups with strong religious elements - White Christian Supremacists, JDL, Branch Davidians, Rafsinjanis, Moonies, Jim&Tammy Baker...that defy US laws or threaten the larger community. It slammed Jonathan Pollard behind bars as a spy despite his claim that his religious beliefs and love of a state founded on his religion superceeded US law.

The 1st Amendment is not an absolute shield.

I hope this ruling against the burqua woman is just the start of us going after other elements of Islam that are not consonant with American democracy. I imagine that we will soon face an honor killing in America, and the father and brother must be prosecuted for premeditated 1st degree murder and cut no slack. The truly ballsy moves will be arresting a Mullah for being caught inciting his followers to wage violence against American infidels, or using RICO against dangerous exteme Muslims the same way it has been used against dangerous Christian extremists and certain cults.

It seems to me we could have avoided the whole religious question by arguing it is unsafe to drive in those things. Your hearing is reduced and your periferal vision is reduced to nothing. It has nothing to do with her faith, it is simply unsafe for herself and everyone else on the road.

BTW, is she wearing mascara eye liner in that close up AP photo? Hummm. Not as modest as you would like us to believe.

Matt

I see she changed her last name to Freeman and not Freewoman? Maybe her new religion wouldn't allow her to use Freewoman. And maybe she'll change it again to say, Notsofreeman?!

I used to think that this Islam thing was actually a real religion with a unusually large share of headcases. The more I read about this, the more I think that this is a cult that has been allowed and encouraged to get way out of hand. Sort of like a wierd marriage of a cargo cult (they don't produce anything useful), nazi-ism, and misogyny. I now think that Islam is a cancer that absolutely must be removed from the planet.

What's astounding is that a judge actually listened to this crap for three whole days! Well, would you sit and listen to a wingnut who claims he's Moses for three whole days? It's just about the same level of idiocy.

i called it! i knew florida judges wouldn't put up with this crap.

if the woman wanted to win her case, she would need to move to San Francisco and get denied a license in California. then she could go all the way to the 9th circuit court of appeals. that appeals court only issues correct rulings two weeks out of the year, and then spends the remaining 48 weeks inventing new laws that no one's ever heard of before, abolishing significant parts of the bill of rights, adding parts that ban the pledge, knowing all the while that by doing so it can waste almost all of the Supreme Court's precious time. given their left wing bias, i'm sure they could find a constitutional right to wear a sack on your head for an identification photo, and with 97% reversal rate, she might win for a good long while.

but there is no hope in any other court on Earth, including all the muslim countries whom we might fairly consider to be experts.

#38 ranbutan:

The US has gone after elements of other religions inimicable to the best interests of the State many times before.

I believe that you meant to say inamicable, ie the US will not buy into ideologies that are on less than simpatico terms with its' norms and values.

Not trying to be nitpicky or anything, but I like to use the following link when I am uncertain of a word's usage or spelling...

Merriam Webster Website

Well, call me crazy but I am a little disappointed that the State gets whatever it wants whenever it wants it. She sounds like a sleazebag but sheesh, does the state have to win every time? This "biometic" scam they are running- which makes it legal for them to collect any information about a person that can be discerned in public is expanding to include fingerprints, DNA, et.
State needs trump anything...it seems.
In Texas, I can drive down the road as long as I have two tags, registration sticker, inspection sticker, liscense, insurance card, and registration paper... buckled up. They can pull me over and search me anytime and not say why of course, because it keeps children safe and protects liberty from terrorists.
For a long time, you didn't need photo on license and we got along fine. Now you can't cash a check without a drivers liscense and a thumbprint.
I'm sure the State and Feds will only use their databases to promote liberty and freedom...and if they don't, what choices do we have?

#39 Matt

Excellent thought. However, a small Amish sect in western Pennsylvania has been allowed to continue to not use reflectors on their buggies despite the common sense safety aspect, and the number of their fellows killed when a car did not see the buggy in the dark. So it may be that we can keep someone from driving who is physically legally blind, but not someone who is religiously blinded. A shame, too, since it may well mean someone else suffering for her rights. Hopefully she'll stay in her home while her husband experiences the outside world, just as the Koran directs.

#38 Ranbutan, last I checked a federal court held that Rastafaris CAN smoke and possess at federal parks, since that really is their religion.

First, let me say that I strongly, strongly, agree with this decision. I would have gone nuts if it went the other way.

Furthermore, her child abuse conviction says something very bad about her decisions.

Nevertheless, the chick is smoking hot. She's not some bimbo bleach blonde. She's got that Mediterranean vibe that is so very, very gorgeous. She's extremely cute.

So, let me join with you in this toast to the judge's decision, religious freedom, and the security of our society, with just the one addition: damn, she's fine.

My guess is she got tired of guys staring at her, so she went Muslim. Come on back to the good side, lady. Not all men are creeps. You need a God-fearing man, and that means Xtian or Jewish.

a federal court held that Rastafaris CAN smoke and possess at federal parks

I'm not an attorney, but that is not the law, I believe.

Aside from the photo issue, is it even safe to drive wearing a sack like this over one's head?

#48 RF

Have to disagree with you on her looks, RF. This chick is ugly. She fell out of an ugly tree, several ugly sticks hit her on the way down, and then she landed in a bucket o' ugly. As a Floridian who might see Freeman out and about (however unlikely it is that she is allowed out), I say get her under wraps again as soon as possible.

Also, in response to some general comments, I admit the Florida Supreme Court is liberal, but it takes time to change a judiciary. We've only had a few elected Reuplican governors since Reconstruction, I believe, including Bush. Give us some time. We're working on the problem.

kind of OT, but someone at my local paper finally had their BS meter pegged and this is what came of it:

[Link: www.theworldlink.com...]

You have no idea how shocked i was to see this in print. In a good way.

My beautiful daughter is an occupational therapist who lives right there and puts her heart and soul into working with handicapped children every day.

On the other end of the spectrum, here's a child abuser who has nothing better to do than this - waste the court's time and taxpayers' money.

She is undoubtedly a hazard on the road. There should be a law against driving with that ridiculous thing on. Could we lobby auto insurance companies to refuse insurance to anyone if they wear it?

They expect women in Saudi Arabia who are not muslim to wear a veil and abide by their laws and customs yet they dont want to abide by Americas???

Just trying to get that Islamic Imperial foot in the door with this case..luckily Uncle Sam slammed the door on it.

Yeah, um, what a "radical". Right up there with OBL. Woo-hoo, we win! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Ranbutan -

No, I think the intended word was "inimical," meaning hostile.

Not to be trite or anything but today is the anniversary of D-Day. Small victory today, but we win again...

If you look closely at her photo (with her face covered) you can see eyeliner. Eye make-up? What a harlot!

#44 Sharona I believe that you meant to say inamicable...Not trying to be nitpicky or anything, but I like to use the following link when I am uncertain of a word's usage or spelling...

Merriam Webster Website

#56 Amy Ranbutan -

No, I think the intended word was "inimical," meaning hostile.

Amy is correct. That's the word.

But I am holding out hope that one day "inimicable" will be in the dictionary since it sounds so good. Sharona, I hope that your version one day makes it into the dictionary too, since it also doesn't appear to exist, using the dictionary link you provided.

i'm not a lawyer either, i'm repeating a rumor

(Once again, with italic HTML tag properly turned off)

#44 Sharona I believe that you meant to say inamicable...Not trying to be nitpicky or anything, but I like to use the following link when I am uncertain of a word's usage or spelling...

Merriam Webster Website

#56 Amy

Ranbutan - No, I think the intended word was "inimical," meaning hostile.

Amy is correct. That's the word.

But I am holding out hope that one day "inimicable" will be in the dictionary since it sounds so good. Sharona, I hope that your version one day makes it into the dictionary too, since it also doesn't appear to exist, using the dictionary link you provided.

google says my rumor was false. thanks for the correction RF #49.

There IS a God and he/she prevailed. Sultaana and her oh-so-crafty Muslim friends did not prevail today. LGF and the State of Florida and an astute Judge with a nose for B.S. were on guard for liberty. All is well in the realm.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe's 6/06/03 Order. Note that Freeman's claims were based on the Florida Constitution and Ch. 761, Fla. Stat., not federal constitutional claims. Also know that Howard Marks and Randall Marshall, 2 of the 3 attorneys of record (and Freeman's attorneys, naturally), are ACLU attorneys.

Randall Marshall was also involved in the Mazen Al-Najjar case, which involved the detention of a Palestinian suspected of ties to Islamic Jihad based on secret evidence. Al-Najjar's brother-in-law is Sami Al-Arian--yes, that Al-Arian. Both Al-Arian and Al-Najjar once taught at USF.

The remaining attorney of record, Jason Vail, represented the State of Florida in his capacity as an assistant attorney general.

[Link: www.courttv.com...]

PLEASE PLEASE! Someone explain to me why this devote Muslim woman is driving in the first place and why, if she is so devote, is she going out without a male relative who can drive for her? I'll admit I obviously have a very limited understanding of Islam.

It's from a couple or so days ago, but I thought this title from the New York Post sums it up quite beautifully: BURQA BALONEY

And that's what it is, baloney. The entire case was ridiculous and she should be punished for wasting all that time and money. Screw her.