As technology advances at a speed matched only by the expansion of the federal government, conservatives on Capitol Hill have been busy pushing back against perceived encroachment into the personal lives of American citizens. One particularly contentious issue has been over the topic of “kill switches” installed into motor vehicles, which advocates say would add another layer of security. Critics on the right see it as a blatant example of Big Government overreach. But one of those lawmakers confirmed this week that their efforts weren’t enough to defeat a proposal that recently came up for a vote in the House of Representatives. NewsNation reported on the intraparty squabble earlier this year: Automotive “kill switches” have Republicans divided. Fifty-seven House Republicans sided with most Democrats Thursday in a vote to keep the Biden-era “kill switch” rule, which shot down Kentucky Republican Rep. Tom Massie’s efforts to “kill” the “kill switch.” Massie proposed an amendment to repeal the mandate that requires new cars to be able to shut off if it detects drunk driving. “Federal law says new cars after 2026 must monitor drivers and shut down if the car disapproves. Your dashboard should not be judge, jury, and executioner,” Massie wrote on X. The move to vote against Massie’s amendment has angered fellow conservatives, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Here’s what the Florida governor had to say on the matter back January: The idea that the federal government would require auto manufacturers to equip cars with a “kill switch” that can be controlled by the government is something you’d expect in Orwell’s 1984, and yet… https://t.co/B1KtC5gNbb — Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) January 23, 2026 And Massie kept up the dystopian theme in his post this week: Automobile kill-switches are coming soon to car dealerships near you. I teamed up w/ Scott Perry & Chip Roy to defund this Orwellian mandate, but too many colleagues (Republican & Democrat) voted against us, so the federal mandate for every new car after 2026 is still in place. https://t.co/16KZ3NYq7h — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 27, 2026 Newsweek also covered the debate and even included this handy reference guide to see whether your representative was among the House Republicans who voted in favor of the Biden-era kill-switch technology: Mark E. Amodei (Nevada) Don Bacon (Nebraska) Stephanie Bice (Oklahoma) Gus Bilirakis (Florida) Mike Bost (Illinois) Ken Calvert (California) John R. Carter (Texas) Tom Cole (Oklahoma) Mario Diaz-Balart (Florida) Neal Dunn (Florida) Chuck Edwards (North Carolina) Jake Ellzey (Texas) Randy Feenstra (Iowa) Randy Fine (Florida) Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania) Chuck Fleischmann (Tennessee) Vince Fong (California) Andrew Garbarino (New York) Carlos A. Gimenez (Florida) French Hill (Arkansas) Jeff Hurd (Colorado) Brian Jack (Georgia) John James (Michigan) David Joyce (Ohio) Thomas Kean Jr. (New Jersey) Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania) Jen Kiggans (Virginia) Kevin Kiley (California) Young Kim (California) Kimberlyn King-Hinds (Northern Mariana Islands) Darin LaHood (Illinois) Nick LaLota (New York) Mike Lawler (New York) Frank Lucas (Oklahoma) Nicole Malliotakis (New York) Celeste Maloy (Utah) Brian Mast (Florida) Dan Meuser (Pennsylvania) Max Miller (Ohio) Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa) Tim Moore (North Carolina) Blake Moore (Utah) James Moylan (Guam) Greg Murphy (North Carolina) Dan Newhouse (Washington) Zach Nunn (Iowa) Hal Rogers (Kentucky) Maria Elvira Salazar (Florida) Mike Simpson (Idaho) Elise Stefanik (New York) Glenn Thompson (Pennsylvania) Mike Turner (Ohio) David Valadao (California) Derrick Van Orden (Wisconsin) Rob Wittman (Virginia) Steve Womack (Arkansas) Ryan Zinke (Montana) Still not sure what the fuss is all about? Here’s a breakdown of why so many liberty-loving Americans are against it:

Former President Barack Obama is receiving backlash over his recent comments on the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting. Obama on Sunday released a statement on X, regarding the shooting, and claimed that there is currently no motive for the shooter, Cole Allen. However, when Obama released his statement, Allen’s manifesto, which made it clear he was targeting President Trump and members of his Cabinet, had already been released. Fox News provided more details on Obama’s response to the shooting: Former President Barack Obama sparked an online firestorm over the weekend after his X post discussing the “motive” of the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner shooter went viral. “Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s incumbent upon all us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy,” Obama posted on X on Sunday evening, roughly 24 hours after President Trump and top officials were whisked out of the Washington Hilton Hotel when shots rang out from a man who stormed security during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. “It’s also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice that the U.S. Secret Service Agents show every day. I’m grateful to them — and thankful that the agent who was shot is going to be okay.” Obama’s post has been viewed nearly 52 million times and sparked outrage from conservatives, who pointed to a manifesto left by the shooter and other details of the attack that they say show the motive was to harm Trump and his Cabinet. “Let’s not pretend to be this clueless about motive, @BarackObama,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin posted on X. “The attempted assassin put out an anti-Trump manifesto about wanting to kill Trump Admin officials, minutes before trying to storm a ballroom filled with the President, VP, Cabinet, and many others from his Admin.” Former FBI Co-Deputy Director Dan Bongino simply replied, “Are you kidding?” “There is a manifesto, and this is why you are the problem,” Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., posted on X. Here was Obama’s post: Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night's shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s incumbent upon all us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy. It’s also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice… — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 26, 2026 Full Text: Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s incumbent upon all us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy. It’s also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice that U.S. Secret Service Agents show every day. I’m grateful to them – and thankful that the agent who was shot is going to be okay. Here was the backlash: Stop lying. We know the full motive. The shooter wrote a manifesto. The shooter wanted to kill President Trump and his cabinet. Why are you lying? — DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) April 26, 2026 Glad to see you reject the idea of political violence, but I see no reason to lie about his motivation, given that he shared his motivation quite clearly. He wanted to kill Trump and admin officials because he believed some of the unhinged lies put forth by left-wing extremists. — Mollie (@MZHemingway) April 26, 2026 We literally have the entire manifesto and know exactly why he did it. pic.twitter.com/qdMvJzUrtc — Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) April 26, 2026 Maybe Obama should have read the manifesto, which was released by Newsweek: Hello everybody! So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused. I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.” I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.) I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near. I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure. I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies. On to why I did any of this: I am a citizen of the United States of America. What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes. (Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.) While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.) Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t* Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me) Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security Hotel Employees: not targets at all Guests: not targets at all In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls) I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that. Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek. Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes. Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this. Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim? This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with. Objection 3: You didn’t get them all. Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere. Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this. Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered. I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.) Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years. Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years. Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism. Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning. Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration. Thank you all for everything. Sincerely, Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone. Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo. What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing. No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event. Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance. I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat. The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before. Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again. Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit. Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done. Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.

In the type of politically charged outburst Americans have come to expect out of washed-up entertainers desperate to remain relevant, Mia Farrow recently subjected the internet to her conspiracy theory that the shooting was staged in an attempt to boost President Donald Trump’s popularity. Leaving aside the fact that, if anything, the incident only fueled concerns many of Trump’s supporters about his security protocol, Woody Allen’s ex made it clear that the left doesn’t need even a shred of evidence to hurl accusations at their political opponents. Here’s how Breitbart covered Farrow’s remarks: “He is forcing us to wonder ‘he has lost a war he is unable to end & is now so desperate to raise his approval ratings, would he …..’ ?” Mia Farrow posted to the social media platform on Sunday morning, linking to an Economist article. Farrow includes quotes in her missive that don’t come from the article she links to. Her followers, however, agreed with her sentiment. “I call bullshit” one said. “I think it was a false flag,” said another. “All planned,” another said. To be sure, Allen, a Kamala Harris donor, is the third person to make an attempt on President Trump’s life. CBS News reported that a relative of Allen “called police before last night’s from the White House Correspondents Association dinner incident.” And plenty of others (including, no doubt, many who love to deride the GOP as a party of ‘conspiracy theorists) are similarly couching the shooting as a possible “false flag” event: Ana Navarro says people think the shooting was staged ‘because Trump lies.’ Keep in mind she does nothing but lie on CNN, The View, etc… It never ends with these people. pic.twitter.com/ZpXotSrQpu — Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) April 27, 2026 A lot of people in my orbit keep saying the shooting last night was staged. A growing number say the Butler, PA shooting was staged. I never imagined I'd see public trust in events collapse as it has over the last few years. It's extremely disheartening. — Max Burns (@themaxburns) April 26, 2026 Here’s conservative commentator Matt Walsh sarcastic reaction: I’m officially convinced. It was a hoax. The Trump Administration recruited a leftist Kamala Harris voting Trump hater to participate in a staged assassination that would include the shooter getting shot at and then locked in federal prison for the rest of his life. The Kamala… — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) April 26, 2026 Full text: I’m officially convinced. It was a hoax. The Trump Administration recruited a leftist Kamala Harris voting Trump hater to participate in a staged assassination that would include the shooter getting shot at and then locked in federal prison for the rest of his life. The Kamala Harris voter agreed to this plan, that works against his political and personal interests, because he’s just like a really generous guy. Meanwhile the Trump Administration, despite dastardly planning multiple assassination hoaxes, decided to keep their patsy alive and a permanent liability to them, rather than just killing him like they could have easily done. They did this because they also are really strangely generous in a very odd and specific way. So in summary we have a plot where all parties involved are working against their own interests with no real discernible benefit to any of them. There is no evidence of this plan and it doesn’t even make any intuitive sense and the motives for everyone are unclear if not insane, but still I believe it because I’m a very smart person. It was too much for even one MS NOW host, as Fox News reported: “One thing that I’m disturbed by as we woke up this morning is seeing folks on the internet say that this was a false flag, that we are basically all in cahoots to do, to say that this was staged,” MS NOW host Eugene Daniels said on “The Weekend.” He continued, “And I think as someone who, for all of us who was in the room, who had to jump on the ground, who had to text our family and friends and tell them that we were okay, calling our moms like so many people in this country have done for decades, to see people say those kinds of things,, it is frustrating, and it’s disturbing, and it shows that the issues that we have to try and fix in this country.” Providing their counterpoint were all those gathered for the dinner when the shooting took place:

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear oral arguments in Monsanto Company. v. Durnell, a case that could weaken the ability of consumers to sue companies failing to warn of cancer risks from glyphosate. The issue is “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.” John Durnell became one of tens of thousands of Americans to sue Monsanto, the maker of weedkiller Roundup, after he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Durnell used Roundup for over two decades near his St. Louis home. In 2023, a jury agreed with Durnell that the weedkiller caused his diagnosis and said Monsanto owed him $1.25 million. “Thousands of others across the country, including Durnell, have sued Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto, claiming the company failed to warn consumers that exposure to its glyphosate-based herbicides could cause them to develop cancer,” The Epoch Times wrote. Like countless homeowners, John Durnell of Missouri used a popular herbicide to keep his home and community free from unwanted weeds. He used the chemical from the 1990s until 2018, when he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a diagnosis he blames on an ingredient known as… pic.twitter.com/RbuVIMtYll — The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) April 26, 2026 More from USA TODAY: The company faces billions of dollars in potential liability and has said it may have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if the lawsuits continue, a scenario major agricultural groups say would pose a “devastating risk to America’s food supply.” Public health groups say the lawsuits are needed because the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to protect Americans from risks associated with glyphosate. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who sued Monsanto over Roundup when he was a practicing lawyer, cofounded one of the groups that filed a brief supporting Durnell. Yet in a move that has alarmed the Make America Healthy Again crowd (who want a more organic lifestyle and distrust pharmaceutical companies), the Trump administration is backing the company. And that’s not all. President Donald Trump has also pushed to spur domestic production of glyphosate and to protect manufacturers from liability, saying there’s no comparable alternative. The fight is playing out as a proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement with the company that could resolve many of the lawsuits. The uncertainty over how the Supreme Court will rule could be an extra inducement for people suing Monsanto to accept the pending deal, which is not dependent on the outcome of the case. “I don’t trust the Supreme Court in this situation,” said Howard Kornblue, another former Roundup user with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. “The possibility of coming away with zero (compensation) is not good.” Advocacy groups gathered at the Supreme Court for ‘The People vs. Poison’ rally, which featured several guest speakers. “Thousands gather for The People vs. Poison rally as the Court weighs whether pesticide makers can avoid lawsuits over glyphosate harms tied to Monsanto’s Roundup,” The HighWire wrote. Watch below: LIVE from the Supreme Court: Thousands gather for The People vs. Poison rally as the Court weighs whether pesticide makers can avoid lawsuits over glyphosate harms tied to Monsanto’s Roundup. Watch live at https://t.co/paGr52dhkg https://t.co/MQneTyx2VE — The HighWire (@HighWireTalk) April 27, 2026 The Guardian shared further: Bayer has said a favorable supreme court ruling will help it put an end to the litigation. Backing Monsanto’s case is Syngenta, a Chinese-owned company that is similarly being sued by thousands of people around the US who allege the company failed to warn them of research linking Syngenta’s paraquat herbicide products to Parkinson’s disease. In addition to Monsanto and Syngenta, future cases against other pesticide makers could similarly be limited, according to legal experts. Lawrence Ebner, general counsel for the Atlantic Legal Foundation, which is backing Monsanto, said in a briefing ahead of the court hearing that consumers could be misled by unneeded warnings. “If you have a pesticide label with a zillion different warnings, how is the user supposed to know the ones that really matter, the ones that EPA really has … determined are necessary?” he said. In contrast, Jim Jones, who served as assistant administrator for EPA’s office of chemical safety and pollution prevention under Barack Obama, said in an interview that states play an important and complementary role in regulating pesticides and determining what types of warnings are warranted. “It’s the perspective I’ve held throughout my career at EPA. I think it is the correct one.” Jones is among a group of former EPA officials who filed an amicus brief arguing against Monsanto’s position.

For those familiar with the Old Testament narrative surrounding the ancient city of Sodom, a recent announcement from the Israeli government might sound like evidence that history is repeating itself. Near the site many believe to be where that city was destroyed by God, largely due to the sexual immorality of its citizens, there will soon be a four-day LGBT “pride” event that the Israeli government noted would even include “children’s activities.” TheBlaze provided this report: The promotion of the event by the Israeli government — just one day after the Israel Defense Forces confirmed that one of its soldiers smashed a statue of the crucified Christ outside a church with a sledgehammer — prompted significant backlash among some conservative Christians. American theologian and pastor Dale Partridge tweeted, “The devil couldn’t have written it better. ‘The lowest place on earth’ ‘The Dead Sea becomes pride land.'” BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre raised the matter of whether his tax dollars might be subsidizing the event, then asked, “Can anyone very carefully explain to me why American Christians owe anything to this?” Conservative commentator Michael Knowles insinuated that the Israeli government’s announcement answered the question recently posed by the New York Times about the cause of the recent increase in meteor sightings overhead. Knowles’ colleague, Matt Walsh, called the planned festival “absolutely evil and disgusting.” Plenty of other social media users offered similar criticism: …on the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah You can’t make this up — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 21, 2026 God could do the funniest thing ever https://t.co/5hpALKNs7a — John Doyle (@JohnDoyle) April 21, 2026 This is one of the most blasphemous things I have ever seen. Israel is not helping their image by highlighting a celebration of sin in the Holy Land. God will not be mocked. Pride goeth before destruction. — Ryan (@RCAM_Media) April 20, 2026 An article from the Jerusalem Post included comments from organizers: Alongside the nightlife, Pride Land will have cultural and art complexes, relaxation and scenic areas, and family-friendly areas with children’s activities, family-friendly workshops, and customized events. The organizers hope to create a multigenerational “Pride City,” not just a party celebrating pride. “This is not just another festival, it’s the biggest thing we’ve done here,” explained Aaron Cohen, main producer and initiator of the festival. “We chose to grow,” Cohen added. “To take an investment of millions, purchase entire hotels for 4 days, and build a city from scratch in the middle of the desert. It’s an experience that lives 24/7, from quiet visits to nights of pride, with a living envelope of music and people.” This is not just a pride event; it also aims to highlight the Dead Sea region as a permanent destination for LGBT tourists, emphasizing that Pride in Israel extends beyond the key hub of Tel Aviv. Here’s some additional commentary on the matter: