I just finished watching the 60-second screed from Dana Loesch which is getting all kinds of responses, most of them castigating her for appealing to violence in response to the resistance against Trump. I have now watched this video three times, because I want to make sure that I don’t misunderstand or misinterpret anything she says. Not that it’s difficult to follow what she says - Dana’s so friggin’ dumb and her rants appeal to such a low intellectual denominator that I suspect my wife’s 14-month old grandson could figure her out.

Dana has been traipsing around on the alt-right circuit for a few years, she’s now employed both by Glenn Beck’s Blaze and the NRA. Neither organization has a real interest in anything other than audience share, and if you’re offended by the tone and content of her remarks, you can chalk it down to the fact that the alt-right is not only having difficulty maintaining its audience now that the occupant of the Oval Office is someone they are supposed to support, but if anything, the momentum on social media now belongs to the other side. Trump has 32.9M followers on Twitter, the Old Lady (a.k.a. New York Times) has 38.5M. Get it?

Dana debuted on the NRA media channel back in September, 2015. She claimed that she represented America’s ‘moms,’ and just like ‘millions’ of other American women, because she is a mom, she also owns guns. She then went on to whine about how the media refuses to carry stories about women who defend their homes and their families from a ‘home-invading thug,’ but will always run a story on someone who was killed in their home because they didn’t do what Dana claims she does - own a gun.

Dana spent the next year basically huckstering the sale of guns to women, claiming in another video that ‘millions’ of women were flocking into gun stores and getting armed. There’s only one little problem – what she was saying about a surge in female gun buyers simply isn’t true. Even the NSSF’s vaunted marketing report which claims to show that more women are getting into guns contains some vague data about the number of women who ‘participate’ in gun events, but that’s a far cry from walking around strapped or having a gun in the house to, as Dana says, stick it into the face of a ‘thug.’

I have to admit that in the new video where Dana portrays herself and other like-minded folks as the protectors of freedom against all those resistance people being manipulated into blocking highways, burning trash cars and beating up on a Trump supporter, I didn’t see or hear any overt appeal to violence, even though at the end of her spiel, she says that ‘the only way we stop this violence of lies is with the clenched fist of truth.’ Dana lowers her voice a bit when she utters the last two words but at least she didn’t reach into her bra and yank out her gun.

What Dana’s video really demonstrates is the degree to which the alt-right, pro-gun messaging has become so muddled during the Age of Trump. After all, to accuse Obama of being a gun-grabber and therefore the 2^nd Amendment protected us from government ‘tyranny’ was an easy sell because Obama was a gun-grabber, it’s not something he tried to hide. And Hillary was a gun-grabber, too.

But now we have a government being run by a guy who says that his supporters will remain loyal even if he would ‘shoot someone down in the street.’ Which makes it pretty difficult to promote an argument that says we should all be armed because otherwise the government can take away our ‘rights.’

I think Dana’s video should be seen for what it is: a desperate attempt to maintain support from a base which is increasingly becoming nothing more than a lunatic fringe. And this will only get worse as the ‘deep state’ tries to take back the government again.