Linda Marie 🐸
LightNews LightNews
banner
lindam174.bsky.social
Linda Marie 🐸
@lindam174.bsky.social
17K followers 7.8K following 8.9K posts
Teacher. Mother. Reader.
Never give up.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
thedailyshow.com
Donald Trump accepted the inaugural Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal award with grace, incoherence, and a condescending dig at coal miners
February 13, 2026 at 4:12 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
djbyrnes1.bsky.social
To be clear, this is *not" a ruling in the suit which alleges inhumane conditions at the Broadview facility.

This is a separate case brought by Catholic clergy and laypeople in November, claiming the govt. had violated their religious rights by not allowing them to pray at the facility.
djbyrnes1.bsky.social Dave Byrnes @djbyrnes1.bsky.social · 12m
New: District Judge Robert Gettleman issued an order yesterday mandating clergy be allowed inside the Broadview, IL ICE facility on Feb. 18 to offer those inside ashes and communion for Ash Wednesday.

Gettleman found the govt has "substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion."
Image text: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COALITION FOR SPIRITUAL AND ) PUBLIC LEADERSHIP; FR. LARRY ) DOWLING; SR. JEREMEY MIDURA; FR. ) DENNIS BERRY; FR. DAN HARTNETT; and ) MICHAEL N. OKIŃCZYC-CRUZ ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 25 C 14168 ) v. ) ) Judge Robert W. Gettleman KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; MARCOS ) CHARLES; RUSSELL HOLT; RODNEY S. ) SCOTT; GREGORY BOVINO; PAMELA ) BONDI; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ) DONALD J. TRUMP ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) against defendants, requesting access to minister to migrants and detainees in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) facility in Broadview, Illinois (“Broadview”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ denial of their access to Broadview violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq., and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq. For the reasons below, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) in part. A. Standing Because defendants raise the issue, the court briefly addresses standing. Plaintiffs’ theory of standing in relation to its RFRA claim is straightforward. Plaintiffs are asserting their own religious rights and the religious rights of detainees and migrants at Broadview. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs have standing to assert their own rights. Instead, defendants argue that “plaintiffs lack standing to assert the rights of the detainees.” Because the preliminary injunction here is based on plaintiffs’ RFRA claims asserted on their own behalf, the court need not reach the third-party standing issues Partial Image text: B. Preliminary injunction To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Of these four factors, “[t]he two most important considerations are likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.” Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois, 85 F.4th 1175, 1188 (7th Cir. 2023). In establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiff “need not demonstrate likelihood of success by a preponderance of the evidence,” but must “nevertheless make a ‘strong’ showing that reveals how it proposes to prove its case.” Id. In addition, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show more than “a mere possibility of irreparable harm.” Id. 1. Likelihood of success on the merits The court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. Under RFRA, the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb- 1(a). The statute provides a single exception that applies if the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person: “(1) is in is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b); see also Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430 (2006) (explaining that RFRA adopted a “strict scrutiny test”). The court finds that the government has substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion. Partial image text: Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an important religious practice. Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is itself not essential to the practice.”1 RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened is “essential.” West v. Radtke, 48 F.4th 836, 845 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that the assessment of whether a burden is substantial does not focus on “the centrality of the religious practice in question”). The Seventh Circuit has “identified three ways plaintiffs can prove that a law or regulation substantially burdens their religious practice.” Soc’y of Divine Word v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 129 F.4th 437, 450 (7th Cir. 2025). Plaintiff can show that the law or regulation, “(1) compelled them to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs, (2) put substantial pressure on them to modify their behavior and to violate their beliefs, or (3) bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering a religious exercise effectively impracticable.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, defendants’ denial of plaintiffs’ access to Broadview satisfies at least the third category. Defendants’ bar on plaintiffs’ visitation to Broadview is fundamentally responsible for rendering plaintiffs’ religious practice of providing ministry to detainees and migrants effectively impracticable. Because plaintiffs have shown that defendants have substantially burdened their exercise of religion, the burden shifts to defendants to show that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Partial image text: 3. Balance of Equities and Public Interest The court agrees with plaintiffs that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor. The govt makes no argument about the balance of equities. As plaintiffs note, Broadview allowed plaintiffs’ religious visitation to Broadview for years before reversing course relatively recently. With reasonable notice and communication, addressing legitimate security and safety concerns, allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees does not pose any undue hardship on the govt. The court also agrees with plaintiffs that the injunction is in public interest. Allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees will improve the condition of those detained at Broadview. Again, the govt makes no argument about public interest. Consequently, the court finds that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. *** Having determined that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements to obtain a preliminary injunction, and taking into consideration the parties’ arguments and representations in today’s hearing, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion in part and orders the following: 1. Defendants are directed to allow plaintiffs to access the Broadview facility on Ash Wednesday, February 18, 2026, to offer ashes and Communion for those who desire it. The parties are directed to meet and confer to establish an appropriate protocol for the purposes of safety and security with regard to the Ash Wednesday services. 3. Based on the parties’ representations during today’s proceedings, the court directs them to meet and confer with regard to plaintiffs’ religious ministry at the Broadview facility after Ash Wednesday, including: (1) personal interactions between plaintiffs and detainees; and (2) the ability of plaintiffs to engage in prayer outside of the Broadview facility and in view of the detainees.
February 13, 2026 at 4:19 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
azintel.bsky.social
KMBC: "A woman tried to set a fire at a South Kansas City warehouse that had been rumored as a possible ICE detention center. Earlier today, the company that owns the property confirmed it is no longer moving forward with a sale to the U.S. government."
February 13, 2026 at 4:50 AM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
rhutabhayga.bsky.social
The U.S. gvt tested all these techniques in Gaza and are now deploying military to terrorize *American citizens*, including children, with them.
On U.S. soil.
Violent home invasions under color of law.

No accountability.
No legality.
No due process.
No accuracy.
February 11, 2026 at 6:59 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
karlbode.com
oh my god who could have ever predicted this in a million years

(Politico was one of countless outlets, including CNN, Reuters, and others, that repeatedly propped up the lie that Republicans had done a miraculous good faith 180 on antitrust reform and monopoly power, something that was never real)
"The resignation of the Justice Department’s top antitrust cop is fueling a fear — even from some of Donald Trump’s own supporters — that corporate influence is corroding the populist antitrust movement the president championed at the beginning of his second term."
February 13, 2026 at 1:22 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
karlbode.com
MAGA's interest in "antitrust reform" was never real, you preposterous fucking rubes.
Just A Reminder: Authoritarians Don’t ACTUALLY Support ‘Antitrust Reform’
A few years ago you might recall there was a three year news cycle about how the modern Trump GOP was somehow “serious about antitrust reform this time.” The party, which has never met …
www.techdirt.com
February 13, 2026 at 1:20 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
sarahkendzior.bsky.social
"The litmus test of whether the US is an entrenched mafia state has always been Kushner."

Full article: sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/the-end-of...
November 15, 2024 at 5:13 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
mcopelov.bsky.social
This elitist view that only rich/Ivy/private school kids should study/have access the liberal arts is so deeply ingrained in so many highly educated Democrats’ views (including tons who majored in the lib arts themselves) that they don’t even realize they hold it, let alone how ugly & elitist it is
asheeshksi.bsky.social Asheesh Kapur Siddique @asheeshksi.bsky.social · 1h
(3) But the Democrat view is also bad: while it's fine for people at Princeton and Harvard to study Latin and Sanskrit, public higher education is about job training and $ ROI. There is no room for the idea that curiosity-driven inquiry is a good that should be supported by the public.
February 13, 2026 at 3:54 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
notquietmodemd.bsky.social
It was met with massive and disciplined citizen pushback organized at the community level, non violent tactics which highlighted ICE’s abuse & thru a huge wrench in their operations. It worked- turned public opinion against ICE.
Agree, now it’s time to dismantle myths about immigration being bad!
February 13, 2026 at 1:01 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
notquietmodemd.bsky.social
The critical strategic error made by Stephen Miller is OBVIOUS:
He assumed incorrectly that the shocking heavy handed abusive & murderous tactics by ICE would provoke a backlash of widespread violence/civil unrest, which would justify further repression of civil liberties.
It didn’t.
February 13, 2026 at 1:01 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
gregsargent.bsky.social
The extraordinary public backlash to Trump's ICE raids and mass deportations suggests it's time to rethink how information warfare and political persuasion work in the Trump era. Dems have an opening to reset the immigration debate if they act now.

New piece from me:
newrepublic.com/article/2059...
How the Democrats Can Play Offense on Immigration
Typically, Democrats run for the hills when immigration comes up. But as two blue-state governors are showing, the winning play is actually to confront ICE and MAGA xenophobia head on.
newrepublic.com
February 13, 2026 at 12:54 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
jamellebouie.net
interesting that these people — and fellow travelers like bari weiss — insist on large, expensive security details. they are status markers, i suppose.
carlquintanilla.bsky.social Carl Quintanilla @carlquintanilla.bsky.social · 3h
“.. using millions of dollars from the former U.S. foreign aid agency to pay for the security detail of Russell Vought ..”

@reuters.com
www.reuters.com/world/us/whi...
February 13, 2026 at 2:54 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
ms.now
OPINION by MS NOW Political Contributor @stevebenen.com:

Jeremy Carl’s odds of success are poor and falling, but there’s a larger question hanging overhead: Why in the world did the president nominate this guy?

READ MORE: www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
Accused of being a white nationalist, Trump State Dept. nominee faces bipartisan pushback
Jeremy Carl’s odds of success are poor and falling, but there’s a larger question hanging overhead: Why in the world did the president nominate this guy?
www.ms.now
February 13, 2026 at 4:02 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
sifill.bsky.social
MUST READ from @nhannahjones.bsky.social today.

www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/m...
What It Means to Be a White ‘Race Traitor’
www.nytimes.com
February 13, 2026 at 4:04 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
djbyrnes1.bsky.social
New: District Judge Robert Gettleman issued an order yesterday mandating clergy be allowed inside the Broadview, IL ICE facility on Feb. 18 to offer those inside ashes and communion for Ash Wednesday.

Gettleman found the govt has "substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion."
Image text: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COALITION FOR SPIRITUAL AND ) PUBLIC LEADERSHIP; FR. LARRY ) DOWLING; SR. JEREMEY MIDURA; FR. ) DENNIS BERRY; FR. DAN HARTNETT; and ) MICHAEL N. OKIŃCZYC-CRUZ ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 25 C 14168 ) v. ) ) Judge Robert W. Gettleman KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; MARCOS ) CHARLES; RUSSELL HOLT; RODNEY S. ) SCOTT; GREGORY BOVINO; PAMELA ) BONDI; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ) SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ) DONALD J. TRUMP ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) against defendants, requesting access to minister to migrants and detainees in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) facility in Broadview, Illinois (“Broadview”). Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ denial of their access to Broadview violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq., and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq. For the reasons below, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) in part. A. Standing Because defendants raise the issue, the court briefly addresses standing. Plaintiffs’ theory of standing in relation to its RFRA claim is straightforward. Plaintiffs are asserting their own religious rights and the religious rights of detainees and migrants at Broadview. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs have standing to assert their own rights. Instead, defendants argue that “plaintiffs lack standing to assert the rights of the detainees.” Because the preliminary injunction here is based on plaintiffs’ RFRA claims asserted on their own behalf, the court need not reach the third-party standing issues Partial Image text: B. Preliminary injunction To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Of these four factors, “[t]he two most important considerations are likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.” Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois, 85 F.4th 1175, 1188 (7th Cir. 2023). In establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiff “need not demonstrate likelihood of success by a preponderance of the evidence,” but must “nevertheless make a ‘strong’ showing that reveals how it proposes to prove its case.” Id. In addition, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show more than “a mere possibility of irreparable harm.” Id. 1. Likelihood of success on the merits The court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. Under RFRA, the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb- 1(a). The statute provides a single exception that applies if the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person: “(1) is in is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b); see also Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430 (2006) (explaining that RFRA adopted a “strict scrutiny test”). The court finds that the government has substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion. Partial image text: Plaintiffs argue that prayer and ministry to the migrants and detainees at Broadview is an important religious practice. Defendants concede that “ministering to vulnerable Catholic immigrants is part of [plaintiffs’] religious exercise,” but argue that doing so at Broadview “is itself not essential to the practice.”1 RFRA requires a court to analyze if a government practice substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, not whether the religious practice burdened is “essential.” West v. Radtke, 48 F.4th 836, 845 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that the assessment of whether a burden is substantial does not focus on “the centrality of the religious practice in question”). The Seventh Circuit has “identified three ways plaintiffs can prove that a law or regulation substantially burdens their religious practice.” Soc’y of Divine Word v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 129 F.4th 437, 450 (7th Cir. 2025). Plaintiff can show that the law or regulation, “(1) compelled them to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs, (2) put substantial pressure on them to modify their behavior and to violate their beliefs, or (3) bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering a religious exercise effectively impracticable.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, defendants’ denial of plaintiffs’ access to Broadview satisfies at least the third category. Defendants’ bar on plaintiffs’ visitation to Broadview is fundamentally responsible for rendering plaintiffs’ religious practice of providing ministry to detainees and migrants effectively impracticable. Because plaintiffs have shown that defendants have substantially burdened their exercise of religion, the burden shifts to defendants to show that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Partial image text: 3. Balance of Equities and Public Interest The court agrees with plaintiffs that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor. The govt makes no argument about the balance of equities. As plaintiffs note, Broadview allowed plaintiffs’ religious visitation to Broadview for years before reversing course relatively recently. With reasonable notice and communication, addressing legitimate security and safety concerns, allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees does not pose any undue hardship on the govt. The court also agrees with plaintiffs that the injunction is in public interest. Allowing plaintiffs to provide pastoral care to migrants and detainees will improve the condition of those detained at Broadview. Again, the govt makes no argument about public interest. Consequently, the court finds that the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. *** Having determined that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements to obtain a preliminary injunction, and taking into consideration the parties’ arguments and representations in today’s hearing, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion in part and orders the following: 1. Defendants are directed to allow plaintiffs to access the Broadview facility on Ash Wednesday, February 18, 2026, to offer ashes and Communion for those who desire it. The parties are directed to meet and confer to establish an appropriate protocol for the purposes of safety and security with regard to the Ash Wednesday services. 3. Based on the parties’ representations during today’s proceedings, the court directs them to meet and confer with regard to plaintiffs’ religious ministry at the Broadview facility after Ash Wednesday, including: (1) personal interactions between plaintiffs and detainees; and (2) the ability of plaintiffs to engage in prayer outside of the Broadview facility and in view of the detainees.
February 13, 2026 at 4:07 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
beyerstein.bsky.social
This is obscene. Russ Vought, self-professed super-Christian, is redirecting $15 million in USAID funding for his personal security detail for the rest of this year:
Exclusive: White House uses USAID funds for budget director Vought's security, documents show
The White House budget office is using millions of dollars from the former U.S. foreign aid agency to pay for the security detail of Russell Vought, President Donald Trump's budget chief and an archit...
www.reuters.com
February 13, 2026 at 4:08 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
standswithhope.bsky.social
I was just posting about the ex-con Charles, and how his son is just like him: amoral and unconscionable! (Also the twin of that monster in the movie The Boy)
February 13, 2026 at 3:20 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
161bklyn.bsky.social
This isn’t a post trying to just get this fucking guy locked up, the post is intended as a reminder that there were real life victims. In this case a victim that was not only raped, but murdered with her head "blown off." And ofc the DOJ will say…1/3
FBI Received Rape Allegation Against Trump During Epstein Probe, File Shows, but DOJ Dismisses Claims as 'Untrue and Sensationalist'
The new batch of Epstein files includes a rape allegation against Donald Trump, but his administration preemptively called it 'untrue and sensationalist'
people.com
December 25, 2025 at 9:56 AM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
projectsaltbox.bsky.social
ICE buys the Chester, NY warehouse. It was sold by Icahn Enterpises — a company with ties to Trump insider Carl Icahn — for an undisclosed sum.
ICE says it has purchased Hudson Valley site for detention facilities
An ICE spokesperson said Thursday that it had purchased a site in the Hudson Valley.
spectrumlocalnews.com
February 13, 2026 at 3:44 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
willpollock.com
as I’ve repeatedly argued Billy Barr will need to be called back for Epstein testimony.
Donny associates implicated in Epstein scandal, with Billiam Barr circled in red Billy Barr “personally” “reviewed” security tapes of Epstein’s cell which is like interviewing foxes at the henhouse
February 13, 2026 at 2:01 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
tastewart.bsky.social
Henry Cuellar is not “loyal” to democrats. He’s loyal al to the felon who pardoned him!! He must be defeated when he’s up for reelection!
February 13, 2026 at 3:34 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
kurtrisser.bsky.social
I don't understand why any loyal Democrat would vote in favor of the SAVE act, which is a blatant attempt to undermine the mid-term elections.

Explanations are in order.
February 12, 2026 at 6:07 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
ronfilipkowski.bsky.social
TACO Trump.
February 13, 2026 at 12:22 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
atrupar.com
Karoline Leavitt describes the FBI as part of the Trump administration
February 13, 2026 at 1:21 PM
Reposted by Linda Marie 🐸
dieworkwear.bsky.social
come on
US Attorney General Pam Bondi with Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sitting on a stage talking. Eric Schmitt is wearing a navy suit with a white or light blue dress shirt, solid red tie, and black cowboy boots. His pants are very slim causing them to ride up high when he sits down and revealing a bit of leg betwen his pant hem and the tops of his cowboy boots.
February 12, 2026 at 6:57 PM