Connect with us

Opinion

Boy Scouts of America changes name to ‘Scouting America’ to be ‘more inclusive’

Published

3 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

The organization began welcoming homosexual-identifying boys in 2013, halted its ban on gay adult scout masters in 2015, announced in 2017 that girls who identify as ‘transgender’ could enter boys-only programs, and fully opened its membership to girls in 2018.

After years of turmoil and upheaval resulting in a major identity crisis, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced today that it’s changing its name to Scouting America in order to be “more inclusive.”

The rebranding comes as the troubled organization emerges from bankruptcy after a tsunami of allegations of sexual abuse rocked the once-beloved, venerable institution geared to forming boys into men.

In all, more than 80,000 men came forward to file claims alleging that they were sexually abused while in BSA programs, resulting in a $2.4 billion bankruptcy plan that was approved by a federal judge last year.

The BSA began welcoming homosexual-identifying boys in 2013, and in 2015 halted its ban on gay adult scout masters.

In 2017, the organization announced that girls who identify as “transgender” could enter their boys-only programs. In 2018, the scouts fully opened their membership to girls.

As a result, Scouting America currently serves more than 176,000 girls and young women across all programs, including over 6,000 who have earned the rank of Eagle Scout, according to a press release.

In a video posted to X, CEO Roger Krone delivered a woke-drenched explanation for the change, saying it sends a “really strong message to everyone in America that they can come to this program, they can bring their authentic self, they can be who they are, and they will be welcomed here.”

The announcement met with a quick backlash on social media.

“This is an act of intentional demoralization against normal Americans and the former key constituency of the Boy Scouts: patriotic, hard working American boys and their families,” wrote William Wolfe, executive director of the Center for Baptist Leadership, on X.

“The Boy Scouts chose the woke over the church kids that made up the backbone of their membership,” conservative author John Hawkins asserted. “Now they’re as good as dead. They deserve it. The kids didn’t. But the Boy Scouts do.”

“Once again, wokeness ruins everything,” outspoken conservative Hollywood star Matthew Marsden said.

“It started with allowing girls into the Boy Scouts. That’s when I pulled my son out of it,” Marsden noted. “This organization helped equip young boys with the skills to become real men and this move is another attack on them.”

“They will be financially bankrupt in 10 years,” he predicted.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

J.D. Tuccille

Signal Chat Controversy Is an Endorsement of Encryption Software

Published on

Logo

By

Popular encryption apps are probably secure if government officials rely on them.

The drama this week over the Trump administration Signal group chat about a strike on Houthis in Yemen in which The Atlantic Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included has been popcorn-worthy, if you’re into that sort of thing. But beyond the resultant posturing between screw-up bureaucrats and pompous politicians, we learned something of value from the incident: Government officials use the popular encrypted messaging app because the intelligence community considers it secure. While the political class argues over the details, the rest of us should consider that an endorsement of this technology.

Is It Snoop-Resistant?

Encryption software is widely used by businesspeople, journalists, and regular folks who don’t want to share the details of their lives and their finances with the world. But there’s always been speculation about how secure apps like Signal and Telegram are from government snoops who have the resources of surveillance agencies behind them. Are we just amusing the geeks at the NSA when we say nasty things about them to our colleagues via ProtonMail or WhatsApp?

One indication that private encryption software really is resistant to even sophisticated eavesdropping is the degree to which governments hate it. U.S. federal officials have long pushed for backdoor access to encrypted communications. Apple is currently battling British officials over that government’s requirements that the company compromise the encryption offered to users so that law enforcement can paw through private data. The Signal Foundation—creator of the open-source software at the center of the current controversy—threatened to leave the U.K. in 2023 during an earlier anti-encryption frenzy while Germany-based Tutanota said it would refuse to comply.

But then we got news of a group chat on Signal including such officials as Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and, of course, Goldberg as a plus-one. If administration officials including several from the intelligence community are willing to hold a conversation on the app, that’s important added testimony to the security of the software.

Endorsed by the CIA

Even more evidence came courtesy of the March 25 Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on Worldwide Threats, during which attendees were understandably pressed to explain the incident and the use of Signal.

“One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers,” Ratcliffe told Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.). “One of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the current administration, to the Biden administration.”

Later, in response to Sen. Martin Heinrich (D–N.M.), Ratcliffe added: “Signal is a permissible use, being used by the CIA. It has been approved by the White House for senior officials and recommended by CISA [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] for high level officials who would be targeted by foreign adversaries to use end-to-end encrypted apps whenever possible, like Signal.”

Whether all popular encryption software is equally secure isn’t clear. But Ratcliffe’s mention that officials are encouraged to use apps “like Signal” suggests it’s not the only one that’s reliable.

Nothing Will Save You From Your Own Carelessness

Of course, Jeffrey Goldberg got access to the hush-hush meeting anyway, but that wasn’t a failure of the software’s encryption. Goldberg was apparently included in the chat accidentally, by the invitation of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, according to his own embarrassed admission.

“A staffer wasn’t responsible, and I take full responsibility,” Waltz told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham. “I built the group. My job is to make sure everything is coordinated.”

Waltz claimed he had Goldberg’s phone number in his contacts under the name of a government official who he intended to add to the meeting. Basically, the fault lies with Waltz’ mastery of contact lists and how to make sure you share confidential info only with those you want to have it.

“There’s no encryption software in the world that is going to prevent you from making a blunder if you directly send classified information to a journalist accidentally,” Northeastern University professor Ryan Ellis, who researches cybersecurity among other topics, commented on the matter.

Ellis and his Northeastern colleagues emphasize that Signal and government-developed communications platforms don’t differ regarding the security they offer for data but in “safeguards to prevent the sharing of information with individuals without the proper clearance.” Presumably, government software doesn’t draw on generic contact lists. That means there’s less opportunity for officials to unintentionally share secrets—or dick pics—with journalists and foreign operatives.

Popular With Everybody (Just Watch That Contact List)

That said, commercial encryption software is as popular among government officials as it is with the public. “The AP found accounts for state, local and federal officials in nearly every state, including many legislators and their staff, but also staff for governors, state attorneys general, education departments and school board members,” the news service reported last week in a piece that emphasized transparency concerns around the use of encryption by government officials. Like Ratcliffe, the A.P. noted that CISA “has recommended that ‘highly valued targets’—senior officials who handle sensitive information—use encryption apps for confidential communications.”

After news of the administration group-chat breach broke, Frederick Scholl, a professor of cybersecurity at Quinnipiac University, discussed several apps that people can use to keep their communications secure “including BriarSessionSignalSimpleXTelegramThreemaViber and Wire.”

That’s in addition to others including Meta’s WhatsApp. And encrypted RCS is replacing old-school SMS for basic text messages, though the transition isn’t complete. Even better, the new standard is supported by both Apple and Google so that encryption will work in conversations between Android and iPhone platforms.

Nothing is completely safe, of course. People developing security are in a constant race with those trying to compromise it. And, like Mike Waltz has discovered, nothing can save you from embarrassment if you invite the wrong person to the chat.

By the way, If you like this newsletter and want to support it, you can: 

Contribute to Reason. This newsletter (and everything Reason produces) relies on the support of readers like you. Contributions help us spread commentary like this to more people. 

Forward this newsletter. Know of someone who needs to read it? They can sign up for free at this link.

Continue Reading

Business

Kennedy to cut 10,000 HHS employees to reduce ‘bureaucratic sprawl’

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a significant restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday in a move to streamline the huge federal agency and cut costs.

Kennedy plans to trim about 10,000 employees from the agency’s workforce in addition to employees who left as part of a Deferred Resignation Program, similar to a buy out, earlier this year. The move is expected to save about $1.8 billion.

Kennedy said the restructuring won’t affect the agency’s critical services. When combined with HHS’ other efforts, including early retirement, the changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees. The restructuring will also align the department with Kennedy’s goals for a healthier U.S. population.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said. “This Department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”

Kennedy also said the restructuring of the department’s 28 divisions will get rid of redundant units, consolidating them into “15 new divisions, including a new Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA, and will centralize core functions such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy.” Regional offices will be reduced from 10 to 5.

The overhaul will implement the new “HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins. These priorities will be reflected in the reorganization of HHS.”

Kennedy also said the restructuring would improve taxpayers’ experience with HHS by making the agency more responsive and efficient. He also said the changes would ensure that Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential health services remain intact.

The Administration for a Healthy America will combine multiple agencies – the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — into a single, unified entity, Kennedy said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will get the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which is responsible for national disaster and public health emergency response.

“Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,” Kennedy said. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves.”

Among the cuts: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will shed about 3,500 full-time employees. Officials said the reduction won’t affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors. The CDC will drop about 2,400 employees. The National Institutes of Health will cut about 1,200 employees. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will cut about 300 employees. The reorganization won’t affect Medicare and Medicaid services, officials said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X