Sean Hannity’s Far Right Love Triangle with Alex Jones and Cliven Bundy

According to Dr. Hannity, property rights are conditional — at least in cases where the property is owned by the government — on whether the owner has plans to build something on it. This is a groundbreaking interpretation of property rights that lesser minds like say, John Locke, were too limited to envision.
Avatar:
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
14
According to Dr. Hannity, property rights are conditional — at least in cases where the property is owned by the government — on whether the owner has plans to build something on it. This is a groundbreaking interpretation of property rights that lesser minds like say, John Locke, were too limited to envision.
hannitybundy


If you ever find yourself agreeing with Alex Jones on a major political issue, you should stop what you’re doing and immediately retrace your steps back to where you might have lost your mind. That’s because Jones is America’s preeminent thrower of bat feces, and is either the most delusional man on the planet, or the most ingenious troll of our time. Whatever the case, he obviously supports Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy in his battle against the intolerable tyranny of federal grazing fees.

alexjones


But Jones has a somewhat surprising ally in this fiasco in none other than Fox News’ gassiest gasbag Sean Hannity, the two-time college dropout who tells Americans all the ways Barack Obama is destroying America. Jones even praised Hannity for his bountiful coverage of the glorified deadbeat Bundy because Hannity is “a former blue-collar worker and understands property rights.”

And what is that understanding? Well, during an interview with Bundy and his sons this week, Hannity couldn’t figure out for the life of him why the government wouldn’t just let someone graze his cattle on government land for free. Here’s Professor Hannity explaining property law:

“I guess this goes to the heart of it here because what we’ve always been talking about is the government fighting over land that they don’t need for a hospital or a road or a school, and the land is going to be sitting there anyway, and all the cows are doing is eating and maybe going to the bathroom on it.”


According to Dr. Hannity, property rights are conditional — at least in cases where the property is owned by the government — on whether the owner has plans to build something on it.  This is a groundbreaking interpretation of property rights that lesser minds like say, John Locke, were too limited to envision.

Facetiousness aside, as bad as Hannity’s argument is, at least he’s trying. Bundy doesn’t have an argument. Instead he has this:

“I abide by all of Nevada’s state laws, but I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.”

Which is why Bundy is seen here carrying the flag of Nevada:

bundy1

In other words, reality is personally inconvenient, so therefore Bundy chooses to live in an alternate universe like Jones, who also thinks the federal government in its current form is illegitimate.

So it makes perfect sense that Bundy would go on Jones’ radio show and say this:

“[W]e’re not in a negotiating mood. We’re not going to negotiate with Big Government. We’re not going to negotiate with [the Bureau of Land Management].”

Not going to negotiate? This isn’t a fucking flea market. It’s unpaid fees and fines that have accrued over 20 years.

Hannity doesn’t strike me as an introspective type, but I have to imagine — or at least want to — that somewhere in that huge head of his, he knows he’s stabled his horse on the wrong range. He can hate the federal government and he’s welcome to try to change it, but when he lends support to a guy who says he doesn’t recognize it at all and starts hosting armed “militia,” then maybe it’s time to mosey on out and hit the old dusty trail.