Comedian Michael Che pulled out of “The Roast of Kevin Hart” last weekend, citing “scheduling difficulties,” then complained that the writers involved in the event were too white. He also hated their jokes. The 42-year-old “Saturday Night Live” star voiced his complaints on Instagram, criticizing both the style of humor and the racial makeup of the participants involved.  “White guys and black people joke different,” Che wrote. “Black guy roast like, ‘look at this n**** shoes!’ White roasts are like, ‘Slavery, math, slain teens, sex crimes, slurs, family secrets.’ White guys don’t give a f*** about they shoes.”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Michael Che (@chethinks) Che’s comments appeared to reference jokes made during the roast by host Shane Gillis, Tony Hinchcliffe, Pete Davidson, and other comedians who attended.  Gillis told jokes about Jeffrey Epstein, lynching, and slavery. He joked that Hart’s ancestors “came to America in a slave ship in a bottle,” per Variety. Jeff Ross and Katt Williams joked about Hart once attending a Diddy party. Davidson and Hinchcliffe referenced the N-word but didn’t say it. Hinchcliffe also came under fire for saying to Hart, “The black community is so proud of you… right now George Floyd is looking up at us all laughing so hard he can’t breathe.” Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Gillis, Ross, and others joked about Hart’s late father’s addiction to crack cocaine, as the outlet noted. Che followed up with another post criticizing event organizers for not including enough black comedians. This was after he pulled out of the event. “‘Lets do a roast celebrating the career of the most successful black comic in the last 10 years,'” he wrote. “‘I love that! who should we get to write it?’” He then attached a picture showing white writers Gillis used, including Nick Mullen, J.P. McDade, Mike Lawrence, Dan St. Germain, and Zac Amico. “C’monnnnnnnnn… that’s not funny?” Che wrote. Variety reported that there were black writers on the team as well, though Che didn’t mention any of them. The post also received a community note on Instagram. While Che didn’t appear to appreciate the roast and Floyd’s family called it “sad for the culture,” Hart played along and seemed amused, plus it was well-received by the audience, who were happy for comedians to start pushing boundaries again in the name of comedy.  These types of “forbidden jokes” have been taboo for so long that hearing them again felt like a breath of fresh air. 

The hosts of “The View” pushed back on actor Billy Bob Thornton’s argument that celebrities should keep quiet about politics.  They were reacting to comments Thornton made on the “Howie Mandel Does Stuff” podcast last week, where the “Landman” star paraphrased comedian Ricky Gervais and said celebrities should, “Get your little award and f*** off.” “I don’t know anything about politics. I have no idea,” Thornton added. “And the stuff that I believe about it, I don’t want to force it down somebody else’s throat ’cause I’m not an expert on that.” Thornton also said trusting celebrities is a mistake. “The fact that people put so much gravitas [into] this group of people that pretends things,” he added. “Just because you played a doctor doesn’t mean you are a doctor, just because you played a hero doesn’t make you a hero. And the people that listen to you, no matter how much we talk, they don’t know us. It’s such a small circle of people that know you, know you enough to trust you in your opinion.” On Monday’s episode of “The View,” co-host Joy Behar was furious with this concept, saying, “Imagine bragging about how uninformed you are.”  Behar went on to praise celebrities like Bruce Springsteen and Robert De Niro, among the most radical leftist stars around, for always getting political.  Co-host Sunny Hostin chimed in, saying, “We are at a crisis point in this country. I think democracy is participatory. I think when you have a platform, that means you have an outsized voice and when you have a platform, I think that you have a responsibility to speak up about what’s going on in this country and my view silence is complicity. We need every single ally to speak out.” Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin offered a different perspective, saying, “A, Billy Bob Thornton is one of my favorite actors. I’m never going to say a bad word about him, starting with that. But B, a lot of this table criticized George Clooney when he wrote his Biden op-ed.” “That is a celebrity using his voice, saying what he believes, it can’t just be when they agree with your position,” Griffin added. “He can say it and I can criticize it, that’s called free speech,” Behar shot back. Griffin added that celebrities shouldn’t be “bullied” into speaking out, and that their participation by just posting on social media is more accurately described as “slacktivism.” The panel continued to argue over whether celebs should voice political opinions, or whether, as Thornton suggested, their influence is often misplaced.  

Agriculture Department employees sued USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins on Wednesday, alleging she subjected workers to “government-sponsored religious coercion” by promoting an Easter message. The lawsuit, filed by a union representing 19,000 USDA employees, centers on an Easter message Rollins shared, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ and other faith-based holiday messages. On Easter Sunday, Rollins shared a memo with the roughly 100,000 USDA employees, saying, “Happy Easter — He is risen indeed!” “From the foot of the Cross on Good Friday to the stone rolled away from the now empty tomb, sin has been destroyed. Jesus has been raised from the dead. And God has granted each of us victory and new life. And where there is life — risen life — there is hope,” Rollins wrote, according to Politico. That message, according to the lawsuit, violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. “Secretary Rollins’s practice and policy of subjecting agency employees to proselytizing messages conveys the expectation that USDA employees share in the Secretary’s religious beliefs, even when doing so would betray an employee’s own beliefs,” the lawsuit reads. “It is exactly the sort of government-sponsored religious coercion, religious sermonizing, and denominational preference that the Establishment Clause prohibits.” For nonreligious USDA employees, the Christian message amounted to religious indoctrination. “Secretary Rollins’s Easter Sermon draws heavily on biblical references that promote a particular religion — Christianity — which the Secretary’s message evangelizes as fact. The denominational favoritism conveyed in Secretary Rollins’s communications indoctrinates USDA employees and has caused them to feel coerced, unwelcome, excluded, and like outsiders to the agency,” the lawsuit said.  The organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the progressive legal advocacy group Democracy Forward also joined the case. In a striking request, the plaintiffs ask the court to block Rollins and any other USDA official from issuing “such religious communications” and to declare the secretary’s religious messages unlawful. “While we do not comment on pending litigation, we will keep the plaintiffs in our prayers during this process,” a USDA spokesperson said in a statement to The Daily Wire.  A vocal Christian, Rollins regularly speaks about her faith and has said she holds a Bible study with other members of the Trump Cabinet. “We are very deep into studying service and being servants of God and servant leaders, but also being able to resist the temptation that comes with power — staying humble and serving God in these positions,” she said in June 2025.

In 1960, nearly 85% of prime-age adults (those between 25 and 54) were married. Today, that figure has collapsed to roughly 54%. However, the topline marriage data conceals that America’s marriage rate is propped up by immigrants. While 64% of foreign-born adults in America are married, fewer than 52% of native-born American adults are married. That’s a 12-point gap. Without the steady arrival of immigrants who still prioritize marriage, America’s marriage rate would be even lower and, consequently, so would the birth rate. At first, one may think that immigrants are more likely to be married because many of them arrive through marriage. But two facts disprove this argument. First, there was no gap in the marriage rate between immigrants and natives as early as 1970. And second, when we divide immigrants by how old they were when they first came to the United States, it becomes clear that the younger immigrants are when they arrive in the United States, the more they look like the average American when it comes to marriage. Culture is driving the decline in marriage, and immigrants and their children are unfortunately assimilating into America’s low-marriage culture. When you look only at immigrants who arrived in the United States before turning 18, and thus well before marriage-based immigration could explain their presence, they still marry at a higher rate than native-born Americans. But when you compare immigrants who arrived before age 10 to those who arrived as teenagers, the pattern is unmistakable: the more years an immigrant spends growing up in America, the less likely they are to ever marry. The marriage gap between native-born Americans and immigrants who arrived as young children has completely vanished this century. This is what assimilation looks like, except in this case, it is a bad thing. Immigrants aren’t bringing some exotic disease called “low marriage rates” with them. They’re catching it in America. It raises a question that should haunt every American who still believes families are the building blocks of a free society: What exactly are immigrants assimilating to? The answer becomes even more disturbing when you look at the second generation, that is, the U.S.-born children of immigrants. Second-generation Americans grew up in households with two married parents under one roof at rates their native-born peers did not. They lived in neighborhoods that were more likely to provide upward mobility, and they enjoyed unparalleled opportunity in the richest country on earth. By every reasonable theory of how culture is transmitted, they should be the strongest defenders of marriage. Yet, they aren’t. The children of immigrants don’t just match the marriage rates of multigenerational Americans; they often underperform them. Among college graduates, the children of immigrants are less likely to marry than college graduates whose families have been here for generations. The pattern holds across every major ethnic group: white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. The kids who grew up with married parents are now marrying at lower rates than the kids who didn’t. After controlling for age, education, and ethnicity, Americans with one immigrant parent marry at a rate 3.3% less than their multigenerational peers. For Americans with two immigrant parents, the gap widens 4.8 percentage points. Whatever cultural advantage their parents brought from abroad reverses in a single generation. The most striking case is among black Americans. Black immigrants marry at a higher rate than native-born blacks. While about 55% of black immigrants aged 35–39 are married, only 35% of native-born blacks are married at the same age. Yet second-generation black Americans marry at roughly the same rate as multigenerational native-born black Americans. The same story repeats in every ethnic and educational subgroup. Approximately 85% of Asian immigrants in their late 30s are married — the highest rate of any subgroup studied, and consistent whether they have a college education or not. Yet only 63% of the American-born children of Asian immigrants get married: over a 20-point drop from the Asian immigrant rate. A similar phenomenon occurs in Hispanic immigrants’ marriage prospects, which collapses to match native-born Hispanics in a single generation. So what are young Americans assimilating to? They’re assimilating to an American culture that increasingly treats marriage as optional and unnecessary. The children of immigrants are immersed in a culture saturated with messaging that careers come first, that commitment is risky, and that families are a “lifestyle choice” rather than the foundation of human flourishing. The sad consequence of immigrant marriage assimilation is that the third generation won’t be as numerous or prosperous as the second. For defenders and detractors of immigration alike, this poses ironic challenges. Defenders of immigration often point to the fact that immigrants exhibit conservative values by being more likely to marry, but this doesn’t last. Opponents often say that immigrants don’t assimilate, but in this case, they do, however undesirable. If immigrants and their children marry less often, then they will have fewer children and should be less threatening to the native population in the eyes of opponents. The decline of marriage isn’t mainly a story about economics, but one about culture. The children of immigrants are marrying less often than their peers whose families have been here for generations and whose parents were less likely to be married. Immigrants are assimilating into American marriage norms. Conservatives really shouldn’t want that to happen. *** Daniel Di Martino (@DanielDiMartino) is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an economist.

Poll numbers suggest that many Americans are unhappy with the economy and have concerns about our foreign policy. So why are Democrats in Congress unable to pull away from Republicans? Remember, it is an off-year election. Every off-year election favors the party out of power. But Harry Enten of CNN pointed out that right now, the question of whether Democrats even win back the House — which they clearly should — is up for grabs. Enten said that in order for Democrats to win the House despite redistricting, they need to win the national popular vote by three or four points. CNN’s current poll shows them with a three-point advantage. If this becomes the actual result come Election Day, the race for the House would basically be a toss-up. The new CNN poll should serve as a big time reality check for Dems. Yes, Trump isn’t liked on the economy… but neither are the Dems. Dems’ lead on the generic House ballot isn’t growing. With redistricting, the race for House control is well within the margin of error. pic.twitter.com/ewJ6w1W1AT — (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) May 12, 2026 That is why the redistricting efforts underway are so important, because before redistricting, Democrats essentially needed only to win the national House popular vote in order to win control of the House of Representatives. But now, with redistricting, a three-point win may not do it. So the question is: Why are Democrats only leading by three points? Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and the president is at roughly 40% approval. Why are Democrats unable to pull away? The answer is fairly obvious. The state of the economy is always temporary, but socialism and support for terrorism are forever. The Democratic Party moves ever further to the Left. A brand-new poll from AtlasIntel is out, and it shows, for the first time, that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is surging to first place in the Democratic presidential primary poll. It is astonishing that the idiot congresswoman from New York, who has achieved zero in Congress, whose entire persona is being the lady who says “like” a lot, and doesn’t understand basic economics while weeping over the funding of Iron Dome in Israel, is currently leading the first 2028 poll. According to the poll, right now, she leads with 26% of the Democratic primary base; Pete Buttigieg clocks in second at 22%, Gavin Newsom at 21%, Kamala Harris at 13%, with everyone else far behind. There are a few headlines there. One: Kamala Harris is falling off pretty quickly. It’s unclear whether she’s even going to make it to the starting gate. Two: Pete Buttigieg overperforms in this particular poll. (It must have oversampled white liberal ladies.) I’ve been saying for a while that I think people have been selling Ocasio-Cortez’s stock too low. The Democrats are aiming for the far-Left — and they are hitting it. You can see that everything that used to be a bug for Democrats is now a feature. Being too radical for the crowd is now a feature. Look at Graham Platner in Maine, the guy with the SS tattoo. That guy. That’s a feature. Zohran Mamdani being pro-terrorist? That’s a feature. Moreover, the Democratic senatorial nominee in Michigan will likely be Abdul El-Sayed, which is insane. The fact that Abdul Mohammad El-Sayed may be the Democratic nominee in Michigan demonstrates how far the Left has moved. They’re now openly embracing people who favor terrorism, who lean into it. Remember, El-Sayed was caught on tape saying he would not condemn those who were in favor of Ayatollah Khomeini. This is a person who has expressed support for terrorist groups. That is a feature, not a bug, in the modern Democratic Party. That made him do better. Jon Favreau, over at the Pod Save America crew, a person who spends his days trying to legitimize radicals, responded to new polling showing El-Sayed with a nine-point lead in the primary, calling it a “third-way bump.” And then Ben Rhodes came back — the foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama whose literal nickname in the White House was “Hamas” (that’s not a joke) — and jumped in to say, “You mean voters don’t take direction from Washington think tanks and Wall Street Journal op-eds?” There are a lot of problems with El-Sayed, including, according to Politico, the fact that he calls himself a physician even though he has never been granted a medical license. So that’s awkward. But the real drawback is that he is pretty much in love with radical Islamic terrorism and campaigns with people who are also pretty much in love with radical Islamic terrorism. In the end, Americans don’t like this stuff very much. When Americans see video from Brooklyn of girls getting punched in the head by Hamas supporters, they don’t like it all that much. Mamdani, as mayor of New York, has allowed radical pro-Hamas and Hezbollah rallies to blossom in the center of the city and the suburbs. There is a video that emerged a couple of days ago of pro-Hamas marchers going to houses in the middle of Brooklyn to protest, and one Jewish girl got punched in the face by one of these protesters. People literally assaulting Jews in the neighborhood for being Jewish is apparently just fine with Democrats; Mamdani has said the right to protest is sacrosanct, which is why he allowed this sort of thing in the first place. Socialism and support for terrorism. Most Americans hate all of it. But the Democrats won’t give it up.