Posted on 01/28/2026 8:53:12 AM PST by CharlesOConnell
I really respect Judge Andrew Napolitano. I love his "stable" of guests, especially Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski–you gotta love the lady.
But when the Judge says that the ICE Officers who applied lethal force to civil conflict situations, "murdered" those who foolishly placed themselves in harm's way for no advantage to anyone, let's apply the Judge's own standards of judgment, as a Constitutional Expert.
There is a customary spread of categories applied to homicides, condensed in this list of classifications, from intentional and pre-planned murder, negligent manslaughter, and justifiable self-defense.
What would be the typical scenario for "murder" in a civil context? In gang-ruled areas, a young man undergoing intiation has to kill someone to get "cred". Most "murder" victims know their assailant, but in such an "anonymous murder", in which the ICE Officers are stereotypically supposed to have pre-planned the application of lethal force, to qualify as "murder", Officers have to have met in their offices with the explicit intention, "lets kill one of those anti-ICE people".
Judge, you don't know that. (In the study of ethics, that's called "rash judgment".)
Judge, you need to go back to the drawing board, to re-examine the decision-making process by which your evaluation became, "murder".
Judge, you need to re-examine how you became aware of the specific incidents, how your "left-brain" received the partial information which was coated in incendiary language.
Re-scan, lets move away, to a different situation. It seems that a South African-born, US-based, "progressive" writer named Ilana Mercer, (whose columns I find to contain unvarnished truth, though my viewpoint is radically different from hers), was canceled for saying that "without borders, you don't have a country".
(To put it in a bumper-sticker format, "No Man's Land Without Borders". Such an expression has to be enigmatic and pithy, to prompt someone think a little outside the box.)
This is not an abstract topic, immigration fits neatly in with the strategies for taking ruthless advantage, by the ultra, ultra wealthy, the top 0.1% who hold about 90% of the assets, the approxiamtely 2,250 billionaires who go by the label "Oligarchs".
(These are just the Russian oligarchs, who Putin tamed decades ago, the conventional bad-guys whose photos you get to see; the real, vicious bad-actors who meet at Davos, you don't get to know who they are.)
The Oligarchs are out to increase their profits by lowering the most unskilled labor wages. That's what this is all about, at its most naked.
(Home-Born African-Americans, whose ancestors were stolen here, who didn't ask to come here but are one with us now, don't get the benefit of this "compassion" which is automatically given to the legions of, admittedly, desperate people, some of whom are hard-working and would make good, new citizens, if they could be admitted through a rational system lacking corruption.)
The Oligarchs have a diversity of operations and interests, but some prominent ones like George Soros, both manipulate money, like shorting the British Pound $1 billion overnight, and at the same time, ranging over all countries without a strong government to protect the people, sowing civil discord for great profits.
I won't go into the highly coordinated civil disobedience planning behind events in Minneapolis, you can get that anywhere, if you want the truth about it.
But the Soros "Open Society" Foundation funds these actions.
If you think they just shovel money out of an airplane at the orcs and huns who are opposed to laws to protect the property, livelihoods and well-being of ordinary people;
If you think they don't tell the insurgents exactly what they must do to get their money;
If you think they don't have monitoring systems to keep very precise track of how their destructive "enterprises" are performing, with a kind of dark-matter "return on investment" (ROI);
Then I've got a bridge to sell you, for you to insert in your next set of holes in your head.
Back to the Judge. "You have been the successful target of a highly refined psychological warfare operation (PsyOps), which has a thorough grounding in well researched operational successes."
Judge Andrew, have you jumped the shark?
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
He’s gone full retard. I thought he died until I saw him on TV a couple months ago.
Apparently the author has not been paying attention.
He has always had independent views and doesn’t have many fans here!
I respect him and remember his show back in the day on Fox was very watchable
Long time ago...
First paragraph alone contains two people I have no respect for ...
He became a certified TV clown on Fox News during the “Russiagate” fiasco when he started insisting on the air that Donald Trump was a criminal.
That’s going a bit far I agree
[[I really respect Judge Andrew Napolitano.]]
Well sir, then I’ve lost respect for you then
Strange link. https://www.ilanamercer.com/tag/tuckercarlson/
Nothing but a couple of articles from 2023
linkfail
he jumped the shark long ago...looking for attention now imo
Agree 100%. He actually failed to jump the shark and his brain was eaten by the shark.
Napolitano is an obnoxious, out of control, radical libertarian. I turn him off when he appears on FOX or Newsmax. To see what kind of kook he is, check out his video on never talking to the police without an attorney. He also dislikes Trump
He was a NJ State Judge and pontificates on Constitutional
Law and has been corrected by real experts on the s8ubject.
I gave up on that libtard sell out years ago! 🙄
Carl Higbie interviews him fairly regularly. We can just fast-forward when he is on the air.
Most lawyers will tell you not to talk to police without an attorney.
I always thought he was on the wrong side of most issues.
He is a biased homosexual. Anything homo he is for and defends. He has been wrong so many times as to be useless.
As if any of this is anything new? He’s gay and has been accused of sexually assaulting and harassing men. He’s been way off the rails for a while.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.