☕️CELESTIAL RABBITS ☙ Tuesday, April 7, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS🦠
Four astronauts, one broken toilet, a giant rabbit, and the deputy sports minister's last stand. Plus much more.
Good morning, C&C, it’s Tuesday! And your author is on the road again, hotel blogging before attending an early out-of-town hearing-slash-trial (we aren’t sure which yet). So we’re moving fast this morning, and keeping it tight, a light intellectual breakfast after yesterday’s nine-course dinner. Your roundup includes: Artemis II breaks a 54-year record and a toilet; the NYT accuses Trump of future war crimes while Iran commits actual ones; DeSantis bans Sharia from Florida courts; and Steve Bannon finally gets his name back.
🌍🇺🇸 ESSENTIAL NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🇺🇸🌍
👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀
In space, no one can hear you scream. Fortunately, the screaming this time, if there was any, was just 200 million taxpayers complaining about a broken $23 million septic gadget— not chest-bursting aliens. Yesterday, the Associated Press reported, “Artemis II kicks off trip around the moon after surpassing Apollo 13’s distance record.” In short, another record has now been set by this historic administration: Humans have now reached the farthest point from Earth. We are going to need a bigger history book.
Yesterday afternoon, at 1:57 PM Eastern time, four human beings did something no living person has done in 54 years: they traveled farther from Earth than anyone except Bernie Sanders. The crew of Artemis II’s spacecraft Integrity —Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and mission specialists Christina Koch and Canadian Jeremy Hansen— soared past Apollo 13’s 54-year-old distance record of 248,655 miles, then kept going, pushing out a little further to just over 252,000 miles from home.
Four people, one finicky space toilet, and the cold, beautiful dark.
Ironically, Apollo 13 set the previous record by accident. In April 1970, after an oxygen tank exploded and astronaut Jack Swigert delivered the most famous understatement in human history —“Houston, we’ve had a problem”— the crew was forced to use the Moon’s gravity as a slingshot to get back home alive.
Apollo’s record-setting distance wasn’t a triumph— it was a near-obituary. It was a low-key Kobayashi Maru, solved with duct tape and prayer. I think Tom Hanks had something to do with it, back before Tom Hanks got weird.
But yesterday, Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen broke Apollo 13’s record on purpose. They trained for years, suited up, blasted off, rode a celestial figure-eight trajectory past the dark side of the Moon —the first humans to do it since 1972— and topped Apollo 13’s mark with four much less stressed-out people peering out the windows at rocks no living human has ever seen and then naming them.
“It is blowing my mind what you can see with the naked eye from the moon right now,” radioed Jeremy Hansen— who was, by the way, the first Canadian to travel beyond low Earth orbit in all of recorded history. Secure your back bacon. (Next stop: 51st statehood. Baby steps.)
If NASA meant to troll Moon Landing deniers by launching the mission on April Fool’s Day, then well, touché. Well played.
Under the state of technology, flying on a NASA rocket around the Moon in 2026 is less like flying the USS Enterprise and more like being a stowaway inside a cable and spare-parts shipment. The computer does most of the flying. Astronauts these days do busywork, like science experiments designed by Lois Simpson’s third-grade science class from Tucson Elementary. Today, class, we’re finding out what happens to grasshoppers when exposed to the vacuum of space. They made a commercial for Nutella. They plunged the space toilet.
Later, the crew passed behind the Moon —40 minutes of historic silence to observe the (very) dark side— and experienced dramatic Earth and Solar eclipses in the same 90 minutes.
Skeptics might say it was made for TV, a fictional show based on an actual space program. Even NASA buffs would admit they are milking it a little. The astronauts listened to heart-wrenching pre-recorded messages from retired spacemen (one recently deceased), and formally gave never-seen-before craters emotionally loaded names, including one for Wiseman’s wife, who died from cancer during the pandemic. Wiseman cried. (I wasn’t crying. I just got something in my eye.)
They experienced a scary, Apollo 13-style equipment malfunction, except in the potty, and not the air supply. Sh-tter was full.
I jest, but the science —assuming you trust the government this much— is undeniably cool. This short clip shows how the Artemis II wasn’t aiming at the Moon. It aimed at a point in space where the Moon would be when Artemis got there, a Celestial appointment requiring perfect timing.
CLIP: Illustration of Integrity’s fascinating 3-D flight mechanics (0:22).
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Integrity. Their mission: to boldly go where no one has gone before, even if they do have to boldly split an infinitive. Because that is what a free people do, when you give us the tools, the will, the nerve, a thesaurus, loose grammar rules, and a toilet that’s at least doing its best.
🔥🔥🔥
The New York Times escalated its Iran support yesterday, in a treasonous story headlined, “Trump Revels in Threats to Commit War Crimes in Iran.” Exactly what the mullahs have been saying! But … what war crimes? Or are they saying he’s just threatening to? And does the Times even know what “revels” means? One thing is true; it was all pretty surreal.
The Times was definitely not reveling after reading a short but provocative Easter post from Trump directed at the Iranians. In three sentences, he dropped an F-bomb, called the mullahs “crazy bastards,” and most controversially, mockingly ended with “Praise be to Allah!”— on Easter. It was shocking, blasphemous in two religions, and painful to read, which is exactly what was intended.
But, rather than whine about presidential decorum, social media age restrictions, or worst of all, delve into why it might offend anyone, the Times complained about Trump’s threatened targets: power plants and bridges. “Their destruction by American and Israeli forces would in most cases be considered a war crime under international law,” the Times sagely opined.
In most cases! Not always, I guess. But as we’ll see, the words “in most cases” were doing a lot of work.
🚀 In 2015, Obama’s Pentagon updated the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual. Revised Section 5.6.8.5 said:
Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.
The section was revised three more times: in 2016 (Obama), and in 2023 and 2024 (Biden). Trump’s DoD hasn’t touched it. It says the exact opposite of the Times’s loopy pronouncement.
How quickly the Times forgets. In 1991’s Operation Desert Storm, George Bush’s military coalition bombed Iraq’s entire electrical grid on Night One. Power plants were designated as priority targets. But there were zero war crimes charges against Bush or any coalition partner nation. There weren’t even any “revels in war crimes” headlines in the New York Times.
In Kosovo in 1999, under Clinton, NATO systematically bombed Serbia’s power grid. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia investigated and declined to prosecute: No war crimes! Clinton got a nice library. In Libya in 2011, Obama and NATO bombed tons of infrastructure. Obama never got Congressional authorization for that one. And that time, the NYT editorial board wildly applauded, like a ward full of drooling mental patients at snack time.
Even though under Obama’s rules of war, power stations and infrastructure “usually qualify” as valid military objectives, the Times nevertheless quoted outraged Yale law professor Oona “Loompa” Hathaway (if that is their real name), who is a notorious Trump Derangement evangelist. Professor Oona Hathaway said, “It’s so clearly unlawful and deeply misguided.” Hathaway was baffled by all the war-criming going on: “It’s hard to fathom how much the rules have been completely thrown out,” they said.
Later, the story paraphrased Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer and now full-time Trump critic, who unhelpfully said: “civilian sites can be considered legal targets if they are used by a military.” (The story didn’t use quote marks, which means Finucane’s actual quote was even less helpful.) That one sentence from a critical source seemed to undermine the entire story. So the Times immediately pivoted to Pete Hegseth.
“Mr. Hegseth, however, has fired and reassigned military lawyers,” the story said, and “has talked endlessly about increasing ‘lethality.’” Endlessly? Whatever. In other words, the story tried to suggest in a cowardly way that there’s some BlueAnon conspiracy to hide all the war crimes. But then the Times found its quote marks. Mr. Finucane added, “It is very disturbing because we don’t know to what degree this rhetoric will translate to illegality.”
There it was. Finally, late in the story, the Times revealed its whole vile premise: progressives are “worried” President Trump’s rhetoric might “translate” into war crimes. In the future. Even that premise was a lie. If you believe leftists ‘worry’ about war crimes, I’d like to sell you an Everglades wildlife retreat. The truth is, they are praying for a war crimes miracle.
Here’s your media reading lesson: Every ‘expert’ the Times picked to judge Trump’s Iran policy was already on record as branding him lawless. That’s who the paper presented as the voices of ‘neutral’ legal authority. The story erased the experts from Trump’s side. It didn’t even admit they exist. The Times used to be able to get away with it, because it was too hard to track down who all these crazy people are.
But now, we have AI. So they won’t get away with it for much longer.
The Times invested a whole article predicting Trump’s future war crimes, which is an implied admission he hasn’t done any war crimes yet. But how about Iran? Does the Times ever turn its gimlet war-lawyer’s eye toward the terrorist regime? Even a little?
🚀 Apparently not. The Times was completely mute about Iran’s plan to defend its bridges. Yesterday, Reuters reported, “Iran’s deputy sports minister, Alireza Rahimi, has called on artists and athletes to form human chains at power plants across the country on Tuesday.” The deputy sports minister —that’s how far down the chain of command they are now— explained, “We will stand hand in hand to say: Attacking public infrastructure is a war crime.”
Um. You know what definitely is a war crime? Using human shields. Human shields are a war crime under the Geneva Convention, the Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute. So.
The good news is nobody has reported any Iranian volleyball or soccer players lining up on bridges. And if the deputy sports minister —not the regular sports minister, but his assistant— is now calling the shots … well, Iran is running out of options. You serious, Clark? That should have been the story.
🔥🔥🔥
Yesterday, Newsweek reported, “DeSantis signs Sharia law ban: What it means for Florida courts.” It means the latest progressive mole —sneaking Sharia into Florida law— just got whacked.
CLIP: Governor DeSantis press conference explaining new anti-Sharia law (37:36).
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a new law widely described as a Sharia law ban, but it’s really broader than that. HB 1471 has two main prongs. The first one prevents Florida courts from applying or enforcing any foreign or religious law —including, but not limited to, Sharia— when doing so would violate state or federal constitutional rights.
You might wonder what Florida court would enforce Sharia law? But increasingly, goofy liberal judges are considering Sharia in the context of divorce cases, such as automatically awarding custody to fathers and denying women inheritance rights. Equity! Diversity! Inclusion! By drafting the law in a broad, neutral way —not specifically targeting Sharia law— Florida avoided creating First Amendment issues that would have made easy targets for the inevitable lawsuits.
Lt. Governor Jay Collins (a retired Green Beret) called Sharia “a political code incompatible with the US Constitution.” Governor DeSantis explained: “To uphold the rule of law, our state must operate under one legal system, the Constitution must remain the law of the land.” He added, “We’ll do millions for public safety, millions for education, but never one red cent for jihad.”
The new law’s second part included anti-terrorism provisions. In December, Governor DeSantis signed an executive order declaring the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR were terrorist organizations. The “anti-hate” Southern Poverty Law Center represented the muslim groups, and last month, a federal court blocked DeSantis’s executive order.
HB 1471 is the legislative belt-and-suspenders. It fixes the problems found by the federal court. The FDLE’s Chief of Domestic Security may now recommend designating domestic terrorist organizations, and Florida can also recognize similar federal designations. It creates new criminal penalties for supporting terrorist groups. Best of all, no taxpayer funds can be used to support or promote designated terrorist organizations. Finally, Florida students who promote terrorist violence can face disciplinary action.
CAIR immediately issued a statement calling the new law “draconian,” said it was a “power grab to create a police state,” and “warned it threatens free speech, religious freedom and due process,” Newsweek said.
This is a sovereignty bill. The message is simple: Florida operates under one legal system— the US Constitution and Florida law. Not French law, Saudi law, ecclesiastical law, or Sharia. In Florida courts, you get Florida justice. It’s not anti-anyone; it’s pro-Constitution.
🔥🔥🔥
It only took five years and four months in federal prison. Yesterday, Reuters reported, “US Supreme Court clears way for dismissal of case against Trump ally Steve Bannon.” The stained legacy of the January 6th political prosecutions is finally reversing.
Yesterday, in a short, unsigned order, the Supreme Court invalidated a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and fired the case back down for further proceedings consistent with the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. Let me explain.
You might be wondering why, if Bannon already served his time, this case continues at all. The answer is, Steve Bannon appealed his sentence. The D.C. Circuit denied his request to stay his prison sentence pending appeal, so he had to do his time (four months). But the appeal continued. Why? To clear his name and expunge his criminal record. And apparently, Steve doesn’t want to pay a $6,500 fine.
Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress, for “refusing” to comply with a Congressional subpoena. He argued that he could not have “wilfully” refused to comply, since his lawyers told him that he did not have to respond, since President Trump had invoked Executive privilege. But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals made new law, holding that “reliance on counsel” could never be used as a valid defense to a Congressional subpoena.
In October, Steve appealed to the US Supreme Court, where the case remained pending till yesterday.
Things began looking up in February, when the DOJ —the same DOJ that had been prosecuting Bannon and fighting his appeal— switched sides, and moved to dismiss Steve’s case. The DOJ filed a brief in the Supreme Court, and yesterday SCOTUS agreed. Congratulations, Steve. Your prosecution nightmare will soon be erased.
Bit by bit, case by case, the Trump administration is quietly undoing all the damage from the January 6th nightmare. As Sam Gamgee once said, “Everything sad is coming untrue.”
Have a terrific Tuesday! Come back tomorrow for a regular serving of delicious and nutritious essential news and commentary.
Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠
How to Donate to Coffee & Covid
Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
Thanks Jeff for your perennial consistency! Blown away by yesterday days Special Edition.
You are where I share news from.
Grateful thanks.
"The first one prevents Florida courts from applying or enforcing any foreign or religious law —including, but not limited to, Sharia— when doing so would violate state or federal constitutional rights."
The fact that I had to read this sentence and take it seriously, here, in the United States of America, blows my mind. That the possibility of enforcing any foreign or religious laws would even be a consideration in a court of law in our country is incomprehensible to me.