H Akston

Do you support Jim Jordan for House Minority Leader?

WATCH: @ScottJenningsKY on the outcome of CNN’s exit polls... “Looking through the initial round here, it’s a bit of a mixed bag for me. I mean, the President’s job approval being at 38. That’s in line with the averages out there. That’s what we’ve been seeing, so no huge surprise there. The issue set to me is interesting. Obviously, expected the economy to be at the top. Immigration sneaking in there into the top three. Of course, that means different things to different people. Democrats could be mad about it and Republicans could be, you know, obviously motivated by that. The economic number is interesting, 56 percent say they are better off or the same as they were two years ago. Only 44 percent say worse off. You know, a lot of the Democratic campaigns have depicted America as some economic hellscape. I’m not sure that’s borne out here, but there’s no doubt 75 percent of Americans are PO’d, and that’s rough for the incumbent party.”

What a disaster None of the machines are working at my location No one can vote

A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one. While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: ‘Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] “overcoming the cotton ceiling”.’ When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’. In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman – they’re non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read ‘Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'. @thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/arti… In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your former CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male. Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high. Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole. There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.

🚨ALERT: The editors of the journal Men and Masculinities will no longer allow authors to refer to individuals as being "male." If an author uses the term, they should "specify which dimension(s) of sex are at issue, since sex itself refers to several only loosely correlated dimensions rather than a single underlying fact." For example, trans-identifying male swimmer Lia Thomas must be referred to as a woman, and his maleness, if mentioned at all, must be attached to specific traits, like genitals, hormones, and chromosomes. You cannot call Lia Thomas a "male" in this journal, but a woman with "male genitals" and "male sex chromosomes." The first author of this editorial—the Managing Editor of Men and Masculinities, Tristen Kade—is a woman who identifies as a man. The model of biological sex this editorial is pushing is what I refer to in my scholarly article "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes" as the "multi-level" sex model. This model is not merely wrong—it is self-refuting. From my article: "Traits are labeled 'male-typical' or 'female-typical' only because they correlate with organisms already identified as male or female—an identification that, in anisogamous species, is made ultimately by reference to gametes." Read my article at the link below. 🔗link.springer.com/article/10…

Yes, he was. Thanks for asking. Michael Anton (Hillsdale) and Peter Berkowitz (Hoover) are a couple of suggestions for more gravitas. Former staffers from either party dropping party line talking points neither persuade nor enlighten. @BretBaier

Charles was on my panel for years too. Who would you like to see on the panel?

An Open Concern About Appearances: The Catholic Church and the Midterms I am Catholic. I say the rosary. I go to Mass. Nothing in what follows is an accusation against the Church, the Pope, or any bishop. It is a concern about how things look from the outside, and how that appearance is landing with millions of Americans right now. This administration created a Justice Department task force on anti-Christian bias, pardoned twenty-three pro-life prisoners, stood up a White House Faith Office and a Religious Liberty Commission, designated Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern over the killing of Christians, and cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood. For a Catholic writer, that record is not nothing. It is, on its face, one of the most tangible pro-life and pro-faith agendas in modern presidential history. In January 2025, the same administration suspended the refugee and migrant service contracts that had funded the USCCB and Catholic Charities for decades. Over one hundred million dollars a year. More than ninety-five percent of some program budgets. By spring, staff were laid off. By summer, agencies were closing programs. The money did not come back. Institutions that lose their largest funding stream tend to find their moral vocabulary sharpening in the same direction as their budgets. I am not saying that is what happened. I am saying that is what it looks like, and that appearance is not going unnoticed. Fourteen months later, in April 2026, the public statements from the Vatican and from American bishops toward this administration grew noticeably louder and more pointed than anything seen during the first term. Catholics see it. Non-Catholics see it. And when a bishop speaks out days before a national election against one party’s immigration positions—which are prudential disagreements open to debate—while remaining silent on the other’s platform positions that contradict settled Church teaching on life, on the body, on marriage, the imbalance is impossible to miss. I am not suggesting the Church holds a grudge, or that its silence on one side was bought. I am saying that is the appearance, and appearances are what most Americans, Catholic and not, actually see. When the institution that spent a year without its largest funding stream then directs its public voice at one party near an election—the very party that delivered more concrete protections for Christian life and religious liberty than perhaps any administration in living memory—the appearance is not of a shepherd. It is of a stakeholder. That is the embarrassment I cannot unsee. -- Joseph Fosco October 27, 2026