An article filled with half-truths, exaggerations, and absurdity:

Hundreds of young women on track to join ground-level Army units over the next year would lose their positions if the Trump administration reimposes a ban on women serving in front-line combat.

I had no idea what I was going to write about this week. Until, that is, I came across this ridiculous story practically screaming out for some challenging. I’m not blaming the writer, Adam Ashton, for all of it, exactly. He’s only writing down what the activists tell him. But let’s go ahead and dissect this abortion. First, here’s your trigger warning: This is all my own opinion, so direct all hate mail/shit talking to @BKactual. Now let’s get into it.

I couldn’t even make it past that first sentence up there. “Hundreds of young women?” Where did they come up with that number? Your average reader may suppose that this is meant to appear that there are hundreds of fully qualified women in combat units, having been fully vetted, trained, and graduated from whatever combat arms school they have attended. But that is hardly the case. The only way this writer could have possibly even come up with that number is to count females who have expressed even the mildest interest in joining one of these units, hence the hedge, “ON TRACK.” What does that mean? More specificity, please.

Those numbers are among the reasons that outgoing Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning believes Trump would have trouble undoing Obama-era orders enabling women to serve in military positions that had long been barred to them.

That would be Social Justice Warrior Eric Fanning, whose main qualification for his current position is that he was the hack political aide who stuck around long enough to eventually float his way to the top of the bureaucrat toilet bowl. His other qualification, highly sought-after in the militantly PC Obama administration, is that he enjoys the sexual company of men. Obama, desperate to add to his wanton destruction of the U.S. military, reached out to a man who had never once served in the military in any capacity, or served in the intelligence community in any capacity, or served in the foreign diplomatic service in any capacity, or served in the cyber-security community in any capacity, and thought, “What I really need is a gay guy! THAT WILL SHOW ‘EM.” So thanks for that.

“It’s hard to roll these things back,” he said in an interview with The Sacramento Bee on his way to a defense conference in Los Angeles this week. “A lot of work has been put in place, and you already have service members serving.”

160516-eric-fanning-washington-yh-0605p_c1a5c9e0e9d1cfda2f738e0d4c4851e5-nbcnews-ux-2880-1000
Eric Fanning (Alex Wong, Getty Images)

This is what I really hate about the federal government, and why I scream so loudly about proposed legislative and policy changes. Fanning is right about that one. That’s why they fight so hard to get this shit put into place. Bad policy is like herpes: Once you’ve got it in place, it’s impossible to get rid of. Think about the frantic speed the Obama administration reached in implementing this policy. It didn’t even exist like two years ago, and now, the bureaucrats act like repealing it is like some impossible act, like landing on the sun, or getting Eric Fanning to impregnate a woman. Calm down, I’m just making a point.