☕️ RISK TOLERANCE ☙ Friday, September 12, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

GOP launches Jan. 6 reinvestigation; Dem redistricting revenge collapses; Trump teases assassin’s capture; Kirk remembered; Senate rams through 50 picks; Scott Adams questions Dem future.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Friday! Today’s roundup includes: Republicans form new and improved January 6th Reinvestigation Committee; Democrats’ ‘redistricting revenge’ plans fall off a political cliff due to liberal selfishness; Charlie Kirk’s mortal remains come home; Trump announces assassin’s capture; thoughts about the country’s perilous inflection point and what we must do next; GOP Senate changes the rules to push Trump’s 50 remaining nominess over Democrats’ obstructing bodies; and Scott Adams offers thoughts about the Democrat Party’s inglorious future.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🔥🔥🔥

What goes around, comes around later asking if it can stay for a few days till it gets its legal problems straightened out. In similar vein yesterday, the Washington Post ran a story headlined, “Republicans name members to new Jan. 6 committee.” Life is a circle.

The article dripped with WaPo’s stealthy bias, such as when it airily sandwiched an ultraprocessed adjective into the phrase “original bipartisan committee.” Haha, good one. Anyway, the new and improved January 6th Reinvestigation Committee has selected its members, five Republicans and three Democrats:

🐘: Barry Loudermilk (Ga.) as chair, Morgan Griffith (Va.), Clay Higgins (La.), Troy Nehls (Tx.) and Harriet Hageman (Wy.), who replaced Liz Cheney thanks in part to a C&C multiplier.

🫏: Eric Swalwell (China), Jared Moskowitz (Fl.) and Jasmine Crockett (Tx.). Oleaginous Jamie Raskin (MD) will “advise” them.

Republicans have been reserved about the committee’s agenda. So far, the only concrete topic they’ve identified for reinvestigation is the unsolved ‘pipe bomb case,’ which Biden’s hapless FBI was unable to solve and took them almost three years to scrape up clear surveillance video.

I can think of a few other subjects for the new committee’s review. Ray Epps, for instance, might be able to take a quick break from the RV life and offer helpful testimony. And, I’d like to know whether the first committee’s chair, flabby Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ate all the unreleased deposition and Capitol security video files that magically disappeared. And if so, whether it worsened his gas problem. And if so, whether that additional methane could be harnessed to power AI data centers.

Onwards.

🔥🔥🔥

Whoopsies! Yesterday, Politico ran an enervated article headlined, “Hakeem Jeffries’ redistricting crusade runs into resistance from fellow Democrats.” Remember Gavin Newsom’s fierce plan to cobble together a heroic group of Blue States who’d wipe out their last remaining GOP districts to punish everyone for Texas’s gerrymandering? It’s not happening.

It turns out that there’s a big difference between talking about redrawing maps and actually redrawing maps. Especially when the current maps are knottier than a kitchen drawer overflowing with three generations of tangled earbud cords, a rogue potato masher, and at least six mystery chargers.

But the real political migraine turned out to be the unavoidable mathematics that, whenever you steal a handful of Democrat-voting neighborhoods from this side to water down a GOP district over there, you leave the first area blushing a bit redder— and suddenly its serenely safe incumbent starts sensing incipient myocarditis.

In other words, Democrats have a serious volunteer shortage. Nobody’s lining up to donate chunks of their safely blue turf for “the greater good.” As former Illinois party chair Robin Kelly put it: “We have to look out and protect who we have, because we fought hard to get them in.” Meanwhile, Illinois State Rep. Lauren Underwood —whose district could be tapped for ‘donations’— didn’t mince words: “I don’t think redistricting is happening in Illinois.”

Meanwhile, in Maryland, Politico reported that “top Democrats have yet to make any significant moves because not all in the party are comfortable with a scorched-earth redistricting strategy.” Who’s comfortable enough to donate their best blue zones? Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) explained, “We’ve got to fight — I agree — but two wrongs don’t make it right.”

It turns out that when it comes to sharing the pain, Democrats suddenly become more defensive than a fat kid with the thickest slice of birthday cake.

Worse, these days, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is feeling downright oppressed. Not only is he expected to wrangle states to cough up more blue congressional districts, but he’s also “being pummeled by progressives at home for not backing democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani.” And, he’s “facing pressure on the Hill to show whatever backbone the minority party can muster in the next big fight over government funding.”

In other words, don’t blame Hakeem. New York Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs told Politico, “the House leader shouldn’t be judged harshly for his inability to secure rapid map changes across the country.” Boo hoo.

Anyway, it seems that the disorganized Democrats’ redistricting-in-revenge threats were just that— hot air.

🔥🔥🔥

Charlie Kirk, the consummate road warrior, came home from work yesterday for the last time. Air Force Two returned his mortal remains from Utah to Pheonix for burial. The Vice President of the United States helped carry his coffin. Charlie’s widow, Erica, watched in tears.

Yesterday, law enforcement, including the FBI, released new footage and enhanced images of the suspect. He was described as a college-aged individual wearing a hat, sunglasses, Converse sneakers, and a long-sleeved black shirt with an American flag and eagle symbol. Video shows the shooter jumping off the roof after the attack and fleeing through a nearby neighborhood.

A high-powered bolt-action rifle (not an assault rifle) was found discarded in the woods near the university and is now in forensic analysis. The Wall Street Journal reported that unfired cartridges found at the scene were marked with pro-trans and anti-fascist slogans. ATF warned —not unfairly— that the ‘markings’ were not officially confirmed, and even if true, could be misdirection or a false flag.

Authorities received over 7,000 digital tips, a record number since the Boston Marathon bombing. The FBI offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to an arrest. President Trump publicly mourned Charlie and announced he would be posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Many vigils were held yesterday to honor Charlie’s memory.

BREAKING: This morning, while I was writing, President Trump announced on Fox that the assassin is now in custody.

Obviously, we hope to know much more about the assassin soon.

🔥 Yesterday, the far-left Nation ran a truly horrible article headlined, “Let’s Not Forget Who Charlie Kirk Really Was.” Their nauseating formula was the same exhausting pattern: we condemn the killing BUT … And the “but” was, as always, followed by various forms of: “…Charlie Kirk said stuff we disagree with.” And, as usual, it mischaracterized or misquoted him.

But the Nation missed the point.

Charlie Kirk’s death did not represent any kind of vindication against “intolerance,” however attenuated. It represented the death of dialogue. If there were one thing Charlie Kirk was most famous for, it was his willingness to patiently and respectfully debate his ideas with anyone. And, they could have killed him anytime. But they killed him during just that kind of reasoned debate, driving a final, bloodstained stake through any shred of hope that democratic debate could resolve the issues separating the sides.

They don’t want to debate. They want to end debate, with a bullet.

And you know what? They are right about that much. However we got here, whether our incompatible opinions were sharpened by bad actors to destabilize us or not, the time for debate died in a tent in Utah.

🔥 Charlie Kirk was assassinated over one of those irreconcilable issues (like slavery) that brook no compromise. Courtesy of BlueSky, behold the problem:

Charlie Kirk’s vastly successful Turning Point movement represented the two primary American ideals, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution: religious freedom and freedom of speech. The left —once the staunchest defender of individual rights— has absolutely rejected those two ideals in two core premises: for them, “hate” speech is violence, and religious speech is hate speech.

Those two premises absolutely reject the First Amendment.

Worse, the premise that “speech is violence” inherently justifies violent response. For all of human history, in every culture and civilization, deadly force has been recognized as justifiable when used in self-defense. When someone uses violence against you, you may legally use violence to defend yourself.

If speech is violence, then physical violence is an appropriate response.

But where did leftists like the rando from BlueSky cited above get that idea? From experts, of course. Experts in the academy. For but one example (of many), consider this title published last year in the Georgetown Law Review:

Or consider the theory’s dark companion, “microaggressions,” as explicated in this Scientific American article from 2021:

For two decades, college professors have been teaching mushy-skulled students that sticks and stones may break your bones, and trigger words can actually hurt you. Now, many of their students have internalized that mantra.

I’m not exaggerating. It’s not like the experts have been trying to hide it. Pace University Law Review, 2008:

Simply put, the ideas of “microaggression” and “violent speech” are incompatible with the First Amendment. Centrists have tried to straddle the sides by analogizing certain types of ill-defined “hate speech” as being similar to yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater.

But, like the Missouri Compromise, that kind of mealy-mouthed accommodation is an unstable middle ground which only delays and sharpens the ultimate conflict.

🔥 The Left’s idea is not new. It is just unAmerican. European and many Islamic countries’ legal frameworks fundamentally reject the notion that speech is harmless, instead treating certain expressions as inherently violent or as a triggering precursor to violence— placing speech in a special, dangerous category that can and should be restricted, unlike the U.S. constitutional standard.

In a widely reported recent case in Germany, for instance, a woman was sentenced to a weekend in jail for calling her convicted rapist a "disgraceful rapist pig" and a "disgusting freak" via WhatsApp. The perpetrator was one of nine convicted for the gang rape of a 15-year-old in Hamburg in 2020. Most of the rapists received suspended sentences, while the woman, Maja R., was convicted of criminal defamation under Germany’s strict laws governing insults and offensive speech.

And so, with the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk, we see revealed not mere “political violence”— but the very clash of civilizations: the American experiment colliding with the ancient pagan philosophy of mind control. Just as leftists wish to place government in control of what experimental injections citizens must accept, they also want government empowered to direct citizens’ very thoughts and ideas.

In other words, these ideas explain why the Left believes that even questioning enforced masking literally kills people, and that government must act quickly and decisively to shut that kind of talk down.

The Founders utterly rejected that philosophy. They accepted that some bad speech must be tolerated in order to prevent an even worse outcome: enforced speech. The Founders’ view cannot be reconciled with the philosophy of microagressions and triggering.

There is no middle ground. Indeed, James Madison, writing in the Virginia Report, used the same words, warning that “there could be no middle ground between liberty and tyranny” on the issue of free speech.

Thus, we have at last arrived at a point of deep crisis long in the making. The tyrannical notion that “speech can be violence” —in whatever form— must be utterly destroyed, wiped from the face of the Earth, and the fields salted, or else freedom and liberty are doomed to vanish from this mortal realm.

Anyone who holds that view is reprehensible and should be shunned by all right-thinking persons.

And if they raise the hypocrisy argument —that shunning their stupid ideas is a similar violation of their own freedoms of thought and speech— silently point to Charlie Kirk’s grave. They are the ones yelling “fire!” in a crowded political theater.

🔥🔥🔥

You didn’t think I would leave you with that somber call to action, did you? In great news, yesterday NBC ran a story headlined, “Senate Republicans trigger 'nuclear option,' changing rules to speed up Trump nominees.” The sub-headline explained, “The new rule, established by the GOP on party lines, will enable it to confirm Trump nominees in groups, rather than individually. It's the latest move to erode minority powers.”

Katie, bar the door. The Senate rule change —passed along party lines 53-45—now allows the Senate to confirm entire groups of nominees all at once, instead of debating and voting on each one individually. The change applies to subcabinet and ambassadorial positions, but does not affect judicial nominations.

Even better, the new rule limits all debate to two hours per nominee in the group. In other words, Sayanora filibuster. Senate Republicans promptly used the modified rule to formally advance a package of 48 held-up nominees, with a goal to confirm them all next week.

Democrats started it. Twelve years ago, then-Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) first ended the filibuster for judicial nominees (except for SCOTUS), calling it his “nuclear option,” and the name stuck. Now, in a twisted homage to an awful Democrat (Reid), basically any rule change facilitating efficient confirmation is deemed “nuclear.”

Democrats had been using every trick in the book to block Trump’s nominees. Now, the Nevada River floodgates have been opened. Of course, when or if Democrats ever regain power, they’ll also be able to speed confirmations through under the new rule. But you can fairly argue that any president should probably be permitted to appoint the people he wants.

But more importantly, we really need to ensure the Democrat party, as presently constituted as a vast criminal enterprise, becomes a spent force and a historical footnote. I’ll leave you with this Scott Adams clip, making that very point (adult language warning):

CLIP: “At the moment, I think the Democrat party needs to be ripped out by the roots” (6:13) (grown-up language).

Have a fantastic Friday! Coffee & Covid will return tomorrow, with even more 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