Specialist and sergeant win Best Ranger competition for first time in nearly 40 years

/in , , , , /by

Hurah! Two total bad asses.

Specialist and sergeant win Best Ranger competition for first time in nearly 40 years

“We had each other’s back, and knew that when one of us was in trouble, the other was there to carry the load.”

Jeff Schogol

Two enlisted soldiers took top honors in this year’s Best Ranger Competition, a grueling three-day event held at Fort Benning, Georgia. They are the most junior enlisted team to win the competition in nearly 40 years.

Spc. Caleb Godbold and Sgt. Drew Schorsch, both assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, beat 60 other teams from across the Army to win the competition.

Godbold is the first specialist to win the event since 2023, a Fort Benning spokesperson said. Prior to that, specialists earned top spots in the competition in 2006, 1996, and 1988.

“It means a lot to represent the [Ranger] Regiment and everybody who came before us,” Godbold said in a statement to Task & Purpose. “We had a lot of support behind us, and we’re grateful for that. We’re proud we got it done, but we’re excited to get back to the team and get back to work.”

Schorsch said that on the first day of the competition, he ran out of water during the first event, but Godbold gave him some of his so he could keep going.

“Later on in the competition, I carried some of his weight when he was cramping,” Schorsch said in a statement. “That’s what made the difference. We had each other’s back, and knew that when one of us was in trouble, the other was there to carry the load.”

This year marked the first time since 1988 that a specialist and sergeant have won the Best Ranger competition, according to the website for the National Ranger Association, a non-profit organization established to improve the competition.

Retired Sgt. 1st Class Trenton Petty, the association’s executive director, said he and other enlisted veterans are “pumped” to see two enlisted soldiers win this year’s event.

“For a while there they started talking about this as the ‘Best Lieutenant Competition,’ because there’s a bunch of years where you had two lieutenants winning,” Petty told Task & Purpose. “So, last year we made it to where in order to have a two-officer team, you had to submit an [exception to policy], and units were still doing that, but it was nice to see a two-enlisted team — and especially a young enlisted team — come out on top.”

This year was the first time that more than 60 teams took part in the Best Ranger Competition, said Petty, who was involved in planning this year’s events. The teams also had to compete in three “mystery” events this year, whereas in the past they’ve typically faced one such surprise. (During one such mystery event in 2022, a soldier managed to pry open a box without unlocking it first — a solution that shows that “technically correct” is the best type of correct.)

This year’s mystery challenges included loading and shooting a flintlock Kentucky long rifle and pistol along along with throwing a tomahawk axe at a target; a Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape event; and then a third event that paid tribute to Paul Revere, who warned colonists in 1775 that British troops were coming, in which the teams had to find hints to escape from three connex boxes, Petty said.

“It’s one thing to just get through one mystery event not knowing how to do anything,” Petty said. “It’s a whole another world when all three days you have a different mystery event of something you haven’t been able to see or prepare for.”

Jeff Schogol

Senior Pentagon Reporter

Jeff Schogol is the senior Pentagon reporter for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for nearly 20 years. Email him at schogol@taskandpurpose.com or direct message @JSchogol73030 on Twitter.

This article originally appeared in Task & Purpose

©2026 . All rights reserved.

MAHA and Science

/in , , , , , /by

I support the good work of a new organization, MAHA Action (Make America Healthy Again). They are medical people, other experts (like me), and citizens who support the efforts of the Secretary of DHHS, Kennedy. They now have a weekly meeting (with several speakers) on Wednesday afternoon, for an hour or so. Here is a notice. Feel free to join if this is of interest to you.

I’ve volunteered to speak. If they say yes, this is what I was planning on saying:

I’m a scientist (a physicist), and would like to briefly touch on Science, which I believe needs to be discussed even more at the good MAHA meetings. This is quite relevant as ultimately, our healthcare successes and failures start with how well we adhere to real Science. I have just a few minutes of time today, so I will just give you some highlight points to reflect on. I’ll be glad to come back again and expand on them.

#1: Although the public strongly supports Science, some 97%± of the public doesn’t understand what Science actually is. This dichotomy means that this is a wide-open opportunity for self-serving parties to easily fool the public. All they have to do is to claim that what they are doing is “based on Science,” and 97% will not be the wiser… It’s important to note that citizens do not have to be scientists to be Critical Thinkers — and Critical Thinking is by far our best defense against any scam.

#2: The definition of Science is that it is a PROCESS. (At a recent meeting, Dr. Malone insightfully said that Science is a VERB. Yes!) The point of the process is to help us discover the Truths of our world. FYI, the most time-tested Science process is the Scientific Method.

A favorite tactic of snake oil salespeople is to substitute Political Science for Real Science. A key difference is that political science has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. Again, they make this substitution as 97% of the public will not be aware of the deception. Today, almost everything we hear the media proclaims to be “Science” is actually political science. Think Climate Change, our energy options, COVID policies, etc. Critical Thinkers are not taken in by the political science ruse.

#3: Another major strategy employed is to conflate Science and scientists to the public. They are not synonymous! Just like some priests are not holy people, and some lawyers are not law-abiding citizens, a large number of scientists (due to greed, political agendas, incompetence, etc.) have knowingly abandoned the principles of Science.

#4: Why are there more derelict scientists than priests or lawyers? Because there are no serious consequences for acting contrary to the standards of Science! If a priest acts counter to his vows, he can be defrocked. If a lawyer acts illegally, they can be disbarred. If a scientist goes afield, there is not only no punishment, but they are often rewarded by being employed by or given grants from like-minded parties.

#5: As a physicist, I am used to dealing with complicated matters, but I firmly believe that the simple route can frequently be the way to go. For example, regarding COVID, the public should have been told that they would be better off if they did such elementary things as strengthen their immune system, and took Vitamin D — which are actually Science-based. I never heard those words from Dr. Fauci or Dr. Birx.

#6: Surprisingly, I have not heard anyone discuss the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). Bobby needs to fix the EUA process ASAP. Rather than analyzing injections, the problem is easier to understand by looking at treatments. E.g., Remdesivir got an EUA (with Scientific studies concluding that its effectiveness is -1%) while Ivermectin was not granted an EUA (even though Scientific studies concluded that its effectiveness is over 60%). This is one of many damning indictments of the EUA process. The evidence indicates that the perversion of the EUA process has led to some 500,000 Americans unnecessarily dying during the COVID period. This is why I say that the EUA process warrants a LOT of attention, both from us and from RFKjr.

#7: As Calley Means repeatedly stated recently in prior meetings, our opponents play the long game. That means that they have no qualms about embarking on a project that might take 20 to 30 years to come to fruition. Since most of us do not think in those time frames, we often miss what they are doing, even when it is right out in the open.

#8: A prime example of this is what has been happening in our K-12 schools. American children are purposefully having their Science education sabotaged. For example, in 48 States, K-12 children are not being taught the traditional Scientific Method — which has been a key underpinning of Science for many centuries. This is happening with what is called the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

#9: Also, in 49 States, again via the NGSS, our children are being filled with progressive ideology in their Science classes.

#10: Worse, in 49 States, our children are purposefully being taught to NOT be Critical Thinkers, again under the NGSS guise of Science. This is being communicated by indoctrinating them with such ideas as: defer to experts, accept consensus views, go along with computer projections, etc. Note that this is exactly what these self-serving parties want US citizens to do when dealing with healthcare matters: go along with what you’re told and don’t ask any questions.

#11: Consider this number: 4 Million. That’s how many annual US high school graduates there are. A good estimate is that today, at least 3 Million of them are lemmings (i.e., NOT Critical Thinkers), who are also heavily propagandized with progressive ideology. What happens in relatively short order is that most of these will become voting citizens. Due to this pernicious long-term plan (that almost no one is doing anything meaningful about), they will soon become the majority of American voters.

#12: Lastly, if we do not fix this K-12 Science debacle quickly, the results will be catastrophic and irreversible.

So, my plea is that citizens need to do more Critical Thinking, pay more attention to what is real Science, and speak up about how Science is being taught in our K-12 education system — which is a disaster.

©2025 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Trump Administration Reshapes PEPFAR into Slimmer, Streamlined Program

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

One astonishing element of the second Trump administration is the radical Left’s hapless pattern of choosing to fight on what amounts to political quicksand. In the latest installment of this phenomenon, The New York Times complains that “the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) … has apportioned only $2.9 billion of $6 billion appropriated by Congress for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief [PEPFAR].” That’s right. The Trump administration is saving billions in taxpayer dollars, and the Times wants you to be mad about it.

I commend the article for its comedic value. “If Congress does not intervene, the funds will have been effectively cut, as the period for their use has passed,” they complain, paraphrasing a former congressional aide for a senator who left Congress 18 years ago. (Oh no! Tell me it’s not true!) “Then [OMB Director Russ] Vought has achieved the goal that he wanted, which was to reduce funding for PEPFAR,” the former aide said. (Well, if Vought and Trump want it, it’s clearly a bad idea. As I suggested, the comedy is top notch.)

However, I cannot commend the article for its journalistic curiosity. In 29 paragraphs, the closest the author comes to explaining why the Trump administration is running PEPFAR on a tighter budget are two passing references to candidate Trump “vowing to slash government spending and terminate many foreign aid programs” and “Mr. Vought’s stated belief that the executive branch can use the budget office forcibly to shrink the size of government.” Never does the author consider whether PEPFAR is an appropriate application of these generic goals.

The truth is, conservatives have been sounding the alarm for years, arguing that PEPFAR — once a wholesome program with broad, bipartisan support — “has been hijacked by the Left to promote abortion and LGBT ideology abroad,” as Family Research Council Senior Fellow Jody Hice summarized.

“This is a program that had a very good start, good intention,” said Max Primorac, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who worked in USAID during the first Trump administration. The AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa “was a real crisis. Millions were on the verge of dying, and President Bush and a lot of faith leaders came together to respond to it. And they did an amazing job.”

“But we’re in year 23, 24 of what is an emergency program,” Primorac continued on “Washington Watch.” “After a while, you had a self-serving industry get involved in turning it into a permanent entitlement program, especially for themselves.”

This industry capture of the PEPFAR program results in two negative consequences. First, it means that “at least half of the money never leaves D.C.,” said Primorac. PEPFAR receives “closer to $7 billion,” but “about $3.5 billion, if not more, of that money [is] staying here inside Washington, D.C. to effectively serve as a money pot for the Left.”

As Primorac suggested, the second consequence is that “monies … are diverted to support abortion, the LGBT gender ideology, and other things that simply do not have the support of the American people.” This is because “the foreign aid industry also has been taken hostage by the extreme Left,” he explained. “When you look at the folks who are doing this kind of work, 98% of their political donations go to left-wing candidates.”

“I think what this administration is doing, and correctly so, is seeing where can [they] really maximize the help. Take out the corrupt middle and empower Africans to start providing their own social services,” Primorac proposed. “I’ve done work on this, and others [have]. … You can literally cut the program in half and get better outcomes by simply removing this very bloated middle.”

This is not some evil idea cooked up by a racist White House to deprive poor Africans of life-saving medicine, Primorac contended. “Every administration, whether it’s Democrat or Republican, has always talked about localization. And that is: working directly with African partners, especially the churches that are the mainstay of providing medical care to Africans throughout the continent … because they’ve got the talent there on the ground. And eliminate that very expensive and bureaucratic middle, the international NGOs, the U.N. agencies, for-profit contractors.”

“This president has been so committed to respecting the American taxpayer. The DOGE came in and did amazing work. They’re still doing amazing work,” Primorac concluded. What PEPFAR needs is not a bigger slush fund for D.C.-based organizations to dip into, but a slimmed-down version that re-focuses the program on stopping disease in Africa by actually empowering Africans. “The administration is doing it. It’s looking very closely at where the money is going,” he added. And that’s what the Left can’t stand.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Marrying Marijuana!

/in , , , , , , , /by

Many young Americans marry marijuana in grade school and junior high under the false belief that they can “divorce” it at will or have no major life consequences. Although it is being proposed to reclassify marijuana with other drugs like testosterone, marijuana is a hallucinogen – psychoactive, mind-altering drug – that can become habitual and addictive.

Symptoms of marijuana psychosis are characterized by a loss of touch with reality and include:

  • Delusions. A delusion is a false belief that a person has in spite of evidence to the contrary. For instance, a person who is delusional may believe they can play the piano when in reality they never have.
  • Hallucinations. To hallucinate means to experience sounds, feelings, voices, images, and other sensations that are not real. The person experiencing the hallucinations believes they are real. As an example, someone may feel insects crawling on their skin when really there is nothing there at all.
  • Dissociation/depersonalization. Feeling detached from reality is a common symptom of psychosis. A person may feel unattached from his or her own body, as if they are floating outside of it, or may feel as if people and things around them aren’t real.
  • Disorganized thoughts. Psychosis can cause a person’s thoughts to be disordered and chaotic. It can trigger persistent and disturbing thoughts as well. Other people may struggle to understand what someone is saying when that person’s thoughts are so disorganized.

How Weed Ruins Relationships

By Jeff Portillo

Substance abuse treatment in Athens, GA, is widely available for those struggling with addiction. However, one substance that often goes overlooked when discussing the adverse effects on relationships is marijuana. Many may argue that weed is harmless and even therapeutic, but the truth is that, like any substance, it can have a detrimental effect on a relationship. Learning about how weed ruins relationships and the impact it can have on those involved may help you and your loved ones develop stronger, healthier bonds.

If you or someone you know is struggling with substance abuse and it’s affecting their relationships, don’t hesitate to contact Athens Addiction Recovery Center at 844.959.4998. Our team is dedicated to helping individuals overcome addiction and live their best life. Together, we can work toward a healthier, happier future.

Does Smoking Weed Affect Relationships?

The short answer is yes. Smoking weed can hurt relationships for several reasons. Firstly, smoking marijuana can change a person’s behavior and mood, which can make them harder to communicate with. This can lead to arguments and tension in the relationship. Additionally, smoking weed can become a priority over spending time with loved ones, which can cause them to feel neglected and unimportant.

Being in a Relationship with Someone Who Smokes Weed

If you’re in a relationship with someone who smokes weed, it can be difficult to know what to do. It’s important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about your concerns and how their behavior affects the relationship. However, it’s essential to approach the conversation with empathy and understanding. Addiction is a disease, and it’s not always easy to quit on your own.

How Weed Ruins Relationships

There are some ways in which smoking weed can negatively impact relationships. These include:

  • Changes in behavior and mood – Smoking weed can cause changes in a person’s behavior and mood, which can make communication and conflict resolution more difficult.
  • Neglecting responsibilities – When smoking weed becomes a priority, other responsibilities, such as spending time with loved ones and contributing to household chores, can be neglected.
  • Decreased intimacy – Smoking weed can hurt sexual desire and performance, which can lead to decreased intimacy in the relationship.
  • Financial strain – Addiction can be expensive, and smoking weed can put a strain on finances. This can cause stress in the relationship and lead to arguments.

Additionally, smoking weed is illegal in many jurisdictions, and getting caught can lead to legal issues and strain on the relationship.

How Athens Addiction Recovery Center Can Help

Being in a relationship with someone who smokes weed may lead to the need to seek outside help. Athens Addiction Recovery Center offers a range of programs and services to help individuals and families overcome addiction. Our professionals program is designed to help professionals aged 40-54 who are struggling with addiction get back on track. We also offer aftercare programs, including lifetime continuing care, to help individuals maintain their sobriety after treatment.

Whether you’re looking for outpatient, PHP, or IOP treatment, we have programs to meet your needs. We also offer a range of therapies, including CBT, DBT, EMDR, and more, to help clients address underlying mental health issues that may be contributing to addiction. Our aftercare programs, including lifetime continuing care, are designed to help clients maintain their sobriety after treatment.

Call Athens Addiction Recovery Center Today to Start Substance Abuse Treatment

If you or a loved one is struggling with addiction, don’t wait to seek help. Contact Athens Addiction Recovery Center today to learn how we can help you overcome addiction and rebuild relationships. We’re here to support you every step of the way. Call 844.959.4998 or complete our online form to take that first step toward a brighter, healthier future.

©2025 All rights reserved.

New Insightful Report on Key Healthcare Policy Lessons from the COVID-19 Fiasco

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

One of the most significant health events of our lifetime

Although it has not yet received much publicity, a very detailed Report was just published by 37 MDs and related experts about their takeaways from the COVID-19 matter. I was thoughtfully sent a copy by the lead author.

Based on four (4) relevant facts, most people would not consider adding to this powerful assessment. These facts are: 1) its extensive length, 2) its four hundred (400) technical citations, 3) the impressive number of its authors, and 4) the wide range of expertise of said authors.

But that’s what Critical Thinking is all about: we should automatically always be considering whether we can improve on: what we are told, what we are doing, what we are saying, etc.

So while you are perusing their Report, please take notes about thoughts you have. Please post them in the Comments below, and I will share them with the authors. Only after doing that, continue on here to see what I wrote back to the lead author.

Note: The lead author did reply to me, and he did not dispute the veracity of any of my eight points (below). His main defense was that the Report was too long already, and adding more material created a problem getting it published at desirable sites (like PubMed).

In that case, my first question is: were any of my points better than any of those that were in the Report?

My second question is: considering the worldwide importance of this analysis, why don’t the authors create a second (more comprehensive) Report and publish that version on the websites of some of their many supporters (like here!)? It seems unproductive to abbreviate what needs to be exposed about this extraordinarily significant international matter, due to the arbitrary word limits of some medical publishing outlets…

My Comments regarding their fine Report —

Thank you for sending that Report, as I had not seen it or heard of it(!).

In my perusal of it, I thought it was very well done.

That said, I would have added some additional comments that seem to be of great significance, yet I did not see them adequately addressed in the Report:

1 — Self-serving parties (and other bad actors) are continuously trying to conflate Science with political science. This is horrifically bad. The public must be educated about the difference, and all health agencies should publicly acknowledge the critically significant distinction.

2 — In the US, the FDA’s EUA process is severely flawed, which enabled bogus solutions to be FDA-approved (think Remdesivir), while quality treatments were passed by (think Vitamin D). [I seem to have been the only person in the world who put this scientific information in a readable table.]

3 — All treatments must be required should show Absolute and Relative efficacy (see my discussion of this). Allowing pharmaceutical companies to only show Relative efficacy is extremely misleading and a MAJOR contributor to the unscientific directions that health agencies took regarding COVID-19 treatments.

Note 1: This recommendation is consistent with an important FDA advisory publication. A key conclusion (see page 60) is that the public is: “unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”

Note 2: This recommendation is also consistent with the CONSORT 2010 Statement — Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials, which states: “… presentation of both absolute and relative effect sizes is recommended…”

4 — Pharmaceutical companies should only be allowed to call a treatment “safe and effective” if: a) short and long term safety tests show Absolute risk to be very low, and b) safety tests include a statistical representative sample of subjects with one or more chronic diseases [since the majority of adult Americans have at least one chronic disease]. Note that the CDC appears to say that 95%± of U.S. COVID-19 deaths were people who had an average of four (4) co-morbidities (mostly chronic diseases). COVID is a disease of those with chronic conditions!

Note 1: Where both of these are NOT done, the FDA should be required to include in their EUA Fact Sheets for Healthcare Providers:

“This EUA was granted after a very limited scientific assessment of this product for this medical condition. As a result, the FDA has a low confidence level regarding the efficacy or long-term safety of this product for this condition.”

Note 2: Further, since the safety and efficacy for the majority of Americans from such EUA products has not been scientifically established, the FDA should prohibit any EUA product manufacturer from claiming that their product is Safe or Effective.

5 — All major health agencies (FDA, CDC, etc.) must make patient informed consent a top priority.

For example, the FDA should be obligated to promptly develop and publicize regulations for Informed Consent regarding the public’s taking of EUAs. (These should be comparable to the FDA’s informed consent conditions for clinical trial subjects [which includes many pages of conditions and caveats: see here].) EUA product recipients should effectively be considered to be clinical trial subjects!

6 — The Report’s Conclusion #4 should be broadened as it does not just apply to injections — rather to ALL COVID-19 treatments.

7 — There was not an adequate discussion in the Report about the lack of health agency support for oral pharmaceutical treatments (e.g., Ivermectin) as an alternative to injections. Of course, what oral treatments that did get their blessing (e.g., Paxlovid) were — just like with injections — severely misrepresented regarding safety and efficacy (e.g., see my table).

8 — IMO, there was not an adequate discussion in the Report about the lack of health agency support for the public to commit to boosting their natural immunity — e.g., see here and here. [For example, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, et al appear to have never publicly said a single word about this.]

I would also advise that the Report authors have a 1± page Executive Summary of this important, lengthy, and technical Report.

Regards,

John Droz, Jr.

Physicist

C19Science.info

©2025 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Third Biden Aide Annie Tomasini Pleads The Fifth In House Oversight Probe Into Alleged Cover-Up

/in , , , , , , , /by

Annie Tomasini, former assistant to President Joe Biden, pleaded the Fifth during a closed-door deposition regarding Biden’s mental decline, House Oversight Chair James Comer said Friday.

Tomasini, who also served as former assistant to the president and deputy director of Oval Office operations, is the third Biden aide to take Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in the committee’s probe.

“There is now a pattern of key Biden confidants seeking to shield themselves from criminal liability for this potential conspiracy,” Comer stated in a post to X.

“Annie Tomasini … pleaded the Fifth when asked if Joe Biden, a member of his family, or anyone at the White House instructed her to lie regarding his health at any time,” Comer continued.

Comer claimed that Tomasini also pleaded the Fifth when asked if she ever advised Biden on the handling of classified documents found in his garage, if Biden or anyone else in the White House instructed her to conceal or destroy classified materials found in Biden’s personal possession, or if “she ever conspired with anyone in the White House to hide information regarding the Biden family’s ‘business’ dealings.’”

The Chairman argued that it’s “unbelievable” that Tomasini and other witnesses are refusing to answer questions about Biden’s ability to serve as president.

Comer had issued a subpoena to Tomasini for allegedly “running interference” for Biden as his mental state declined. Tomasini — along with former chief of staff to first lady Jill Biden Anthony Bernal — we part of the “politburo,” as described in Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper’s book, “Original Sin,” that allegedly shielded Biden from questions about his health.

Bernal repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during a closed-door deposition before the Committee on Wednesday.

Kevin O’Connor, former physician to President Joe Biden, was the first of those subpoenaed to plead the Fifth Amendment during his deposition on July 9.

AUTHOR

Ashley Brasfield

Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ex-Biden Aide Neera Tanden Allegedly Directed Autopen Use Without Knowing Who Provided Final Approval

Rep Comer: ‘The Odds Of Calling In Jill Biden’ As Witness In Autopen Investigation ‘Increased Significantly Today’

House Oversight To Depose Ex-Biden Physician Kevin O’Connor

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republised with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Army’s New PT Test Standards

/in , , , , , , /by

Regardless, I still am of the opinion that women should not serve in direct ground combat positions e.g. infantry, front line artillery, armor, cavalry, combat engineers nor Ranger, LRRP, Force Recon, Special Forces/Delta type operations units.

Here are the Army’s new ‘sex-neutral’ fitness standards

By Patty Nieberg

All soldiers can expect to do more push-ups, and women in combat jobs will have to pick up the pace in a two-mile run as much as three minutes faster, under the Army’s new fitness requirements.

“There are a couple of age brackets where your minimum run time, you might have to run about 30 seconds faster in order to pass. There are a couple of areas where you’ve got to do more hand-release push-ups,” Command Sgt. Major Stephanie Carl told Task & Purpose.

The Army released new scorecards Friday that lay out the requirements of the new ‘sex-neutral’ standards announced last month. The cards cover mandatory performance for all five events of the new Army Fitness test under two categories: one labeled “M/C” for male and all combat soldiers,s and another as “F” for female, which is for non-combat female soldiers.

Under the re-branded Army Fitness Test, AFT, soldiers will have to complete a three-repetition maximum deadlift, hand-release push-ups, the sprint-drag-carry, plank, and a two-mile run. The new test got rid of the standing power throw, more informally referred to as the ‘yeet’ event.

To pass the AFT, combat soldiers will have to earn a score of 350 points in total which averages out to between 60 and 70 points in each event.

“You’re required to get 60 points in each event so if I know that I’m only getting 65 points in one of my events, I’m gonna have to make up that difference somewhere else and do more than 70 in another event in order to balance it,” Carl said.

Under the old scoring card, soldiers across all ages were required to do 10 hand-release push-ups to pass the event with 60 points. Now, all combat soldiers, and all men, 17 to 21 will have to do 15 push-ups. Those between 22 to 31 will have to do 14 push-ups. Non-combat female soldiers in those age ranges will have to do 11.

To get 60 points for the two-mile run, all female soldiers between 17 and 21 previously had to run within 23 minutes and 22 seconds. But under the new fitness test, all combat soldiers will have to run two miles within 19 minutes and 57 seconds — a decrease in time for women of more than three minutes. Non-combat male soldiers will also have to run the event nearly two minutes faster than they were required to previously.

“We’ve raised the bar for combat MOSs, ensuring these soldiers are physically prepared for the intense demands of their roles,” Sgt. Major. Christopher Mullinax said in a statement. “The standardized scoring tables encourage all soldiers to achieve a higher level of overall fitness.”

For non-combat MOSes, soldiers have to score a minimum of 300 points with 60 in each event.

The Army Fitness Test became the Army’s “test of record” June 1 but soldiers in the 21 combat military occupational specialties will not face adverse actions for failing their tests until Jan. 1, 2026. If combat soldiers don’t score a 350 after their second test attempt, they may be forced to reclassify into a new job.

“We do recognize there are some events that soldiers are going to have to work a little bit harder if they weren’t training consistently,” Carl said. “If you were a soldier who was just hitting the minimum on some of these events now, well, your minimum might have gone up and so you’re going to have to work a little bit harder to achieve that minimum.”

To get 60 points for the deadlift, women in combat roles and all male soldiers 17 to 31 will have to lift 150 pounds, 10 pounds more than they did previously. Female soldiers of the same ages will still have to deadlift 120 pounds.

The time required to hold a plank remained the same for all soldiers.

©2025 . All rights reserved.