Ep. 145 dissects how John Lewis and Democrats staged a Capitol sit-in for gun control, framing it as a civil rights fight post-Orlando, while Rep. Neverween Google dismissed due process and Rep. Narrative Distraction tied violence to Islamism. Media like Gersh Kuntzman sensationalized AR-15 recoil, ignoring Clinton’s vague policies amid Trump’s corruption critiques—Saudi/China ties, Obama’s economic record—yet NBC buried her server hacking claims. The debate pivots from terrorism to guns, exposing media bias, while feminism’s role is questioned via stay-at-home mom studies, all culminating in a critique of how narratives bury truth, like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. [Automatically generated summary]
Democrats staged a sit-in in the House of Representatives yesterday to demand that House Republicans move to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms.
1960s civil rights activist John Lewis led the charge saying, quote, in the 60s, sit-ins helped to secure our civil rights when I was for them.
I see no reason why they shouldn't help destroy our civil rights now that I'm against them.
During the protest, Democrat lawmakers sat still doing absolutely nothing in the hopes that the resulting economic recovery and increasing human freedom would cause people to break down and give in to their demands.
Democrat Congressman Neverween Google told reporters, quote, we know that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, but we don't like it.
We don't like it.
We don't like it.
So we're going to sit here and hold our breaths until our faces turn blue and you give us your rights because we want them and we want them right now.
Any other course of action would be childish, unquote.
Democrats have increased their push to destroy the Second Amendment since the latest mass killing in Orlando, Florida.
As Democrat Congressman Narrative Distraction put it, quote, first we had Islamists commit mass murder in Boston.
Next we had Islamists commit mass murder in San Bernardino.
Then we had an Islamist commit mass murder in Orlando.
We have to ban guns before one of these Islamists gets shot.
That would be Islamophobia.
Speaking on CNN, Democrat lawmaker Warner B. Tyrant told Wolf Blitzer, quote, when the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment, people were using flintlocks.
How could a man like Benjamin Franklin ever have imagined that firearms would become more efficient and complex?
What was he?
Some kind of visionary scientist or something?
Don't make me laugh, unquote.
Mainstream media journalists joined the fray as well.
One daily news columnist went so far as to fire an AR-15 and said he found it, quote, very loud and horrifying.
The columnist, Gersh Kuntzman, no, that one wasn't a joke.
That was his real name, Gersh Kuntzman.
I mean it.
I'm being serious now.
That's his name.
I'm not making this up.
It's Gersh Kuntzman.
Stop laughing.
Mr. Kuntzman said after firing the gun, and this is an actual quote, the recoil bruised my shoulder.
The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face.
The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick.
The explosions gave me a temporary form of PTSD.
Reportedly, Mr. Kuntzman's wife was also upset by the incident and suggested that she and Gersh should both start dating other men.
And did I mention his name was Gersh?
Never mind.
Presumptive Democrat nominee for sinister president Hillary Clinton said in a rousing speech in Swing State, Ohio, quote, the founders wanted people to own guns so that they could defend themselves from an oppressive and overreaching government.
What were they trying to do?
Get me killed?
I am completely in favor of strict gun control.
Unless people are against it, then I'm against it, but secretly for it, but against it, but for it.
Donald Trump also joined the discussion about guns by shooting himself in the foot.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the end of Clavin Show.
Gersh Kuntzman.
I swear, you know, I swear, John, I looked it up again and again because I thought, I'm being punked.
I'm obviously going to wait till Clavin falls for this one.
But no, that's who he was.
And he was so upset by that gun.
He was just like, oh, my God.
He's going to set his skirt on fire.
It was just a terrible thing.
All right.
Great mailbag yesterday.
I love doing that thing.
So please subscribe so you can write in and send in stuff and ask your questions.
It is free for a month.
And then we start, you know, just automatically taking stuff out of your bank account until it's empty.
And then we kick you to the curb.
All right, the Clavenless weekend is about to begin, and we can see the chaos is already gathering.
Democrats, last I looked, the Democrats were still sitting in in the House.
I don't suppose they'll be there.
The Republicans have gone home, but they're demanding a vote on gun rights.
Let's look at some of this because this is really what's actually happening is actually kind of important and in keeping with the theme of these last two weeks.
John Lewis, civil rights leader back in the day, also the guy, if you remember, that Breitbart exposed because he claimed that Tea Partiers had called him the N-word.
And Breitbart, by the time he was finished, was offering $100,000 for someone to produce the video and no one could do it, because of course that did never happen.
But he was a civil rights guy back in the day.
So here he is talking about why, you know, what he's doing on the House floor.
Today we've come a distance.
We made some progress.
We crossed one bridge, but we have other bridges to cross.
We're not giving up the fight.
The fight is an ongoing fight.
We will not be happy.
We will not be satisfied.
We will not be pleased until we do something in a major way.
Make a major down payment on ending gun violence in America.
We lost too many of our children, our babies, too many of our mothers and fathers, our brothers and sisters, and we will continue to fight.
So it's a bridge.
It's a fight.
What was he talking about?
It's a bridge.
It's a fight.
There are babies.
I'm not sure what's going on.
But that's why I love the way Democrats thought.
It's all like this hyper-dramatic stuff going on.
And of course, Paul Ryan comes out and his response is, Ryan is like the last adult in Washington, D.C. He's like the only guy when he talks.
I think like, I understood what he just said and why he was saying it.
Now, by the way, just so you remember, just so we're fair here, the Republicans did have a kind of protest like this back in 2008 when they were trying to force the Democrats to vote on an energy plan to bring down gas prices.
They wanted more, you know, they wanted more fracking and all this sort of thing.
And the Democrats not only walked out, but they walked out and shut off the lights.
The Republicans walked out of this protest, but they didn't turn off the lights.
They turned off the microphones, but they left the lights burning so these guys could bump into each other.
So here's Ryan explaining how he sees it, much more logically.
This is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
That's point number one.
Point number two is this bill was already defeated in the United States Senate.
Number three, we're not going to take away a citizen's due process rights.
We're not going to take away a citizen's constitutional rights without due process.
That was already defeated in the Senate, and this is not a way to try and bring up legislation.
Now, let's focus on the issue at hand here, terrorism.
And let's find out what we need to do to prevent future terrorist attacks.
And if a person is on a terror watch list and they go try to buy a gun, we have procedures in place to deal with that.
We want to make sure that those procedures are done correctly.
And that's something we should be able to do in a calm and cool manner without these sort of dilatory publicity stunt tactics to try and bring a bill that already died over in the Senate to the House floor.
You know, when he's talking about due process, the reason he's talking about that is because what they want to do is ban people from getting guns if they're on a watch list.
But any bureaucrat can slap you on a watch list.
There's an eight-year-old child on one of the watch lists, can't get off.
So you can't deprive somebody of his rights without due process, right?
You have to have a trial before you put somebody in jail.
You can't just throw.
Yeah, exactly.
Democrats cannot understand why that should be.
So that's why he's talking about, but everything he said was true.
But remember, this is not about gun control.
It is not about gun control.
A lot of these Democrats no more want a vote on gun control than the Republicans do because they are from purple states.
And if they're caught trying to take people's Second Amendment rights away, they're going to be kicked out.
You know, so they don't want that happening.
That's not what this is about.
This is about narrative.
Remember, I think it was yesterday I was talking, maybe the day before I was talking about that great Bill McGurn column in the Wall Street Journal about how Ray Kelly, the police chief, and Mayor Bloomberg, had a thing in place to take guns away from bad guys in New York, and the liberals and the Democrats destroyed it.
It was called Stop and Frisk.
They don't want to take guns away from bad guys.
That's not what this is about.
They want to take guns away from you.
That's the point.
But most importantly, most importantly, they want to shift the narrative.
We should be talking about Islam in this country.
You know, I don't mean that in a nasty way against decent, freedom-loving American Muslim people.
We should be talking about Islamism and whether it comes out of Islam and how it comes out of Islam and where it's coming out of Islam and what the people in the mosques are doing to help prevent it and how they're standing up and how they're afraid and whether women are being mistreated in Islamic homes and where they're not being mistreated and what the guys who aren't mistreating them want to say to the guys who are mistreated.
Why aren't we having those discussions?
That's the discussion we should be having.
This is about shifting the narrative away from that.
That's all it is.
Now, we're winning the gun fight because it's in the Constitution.
They can't quite change it.
If Hillary Clinton gets in and appoints another judge, they might get away with it.
But so far, the court has ruled that the Constitution means what the words on the page say they mean, that it can't be infringed.
But they're not trying to do that.
They've already won the fight that they're in.
They've already won the fight that they're in, which is to shift the narrative to gun control and how evil Republicans are.
And if you don't think the press is on board, let me play this for you.
This is ABC News.
This is that guy, Chad Goybach.
He's the guy, what's his name?
David Muir.
Goybach, by the way, is an old show business expression.
It's actually from before my time.
There are a lot of Jewish comedians.
And there would be these game show hosts who just looked like the waspiest guys in America.
You know, they just had these faces where you almost couldn't see their face because their features were so smooth.
And the Jews in show business would call them goybachs, as goy as a Gentile, Yiddish word, Gentile.
So they were called goybaches because this guy, David Muir, is a classic goybach.
Now, he was the guy we played before, all aflutter that Hillary Clinton had been nominated, right?
He was showing, taking her backstage, escorting her, how much this means to you, okay?
Listen to this story.
I'm just going to play a minute of their story covering this.
I mean, it's insane.
Go ahead.
The dramatic sit-in on Capitol Hill.
Some members of Congress suddenly staging a protest on the floor of the House, sitting down demanding action on gun control.
They are still sitting there tonight.
The longtime civil rights icon, Congressman John Lewis, saying this is about the right to vote on this.
President Obama thanking Congressman Lewis today, but here's the question: will there be a vote?
What Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said just moments ago, ABC's Jonathan Carl on Capitol Hill tonight.
It's something we've just never seen before.
Members of Congress staging a sit-in like a bunch of protesters on a college campus.
We are blind to a crisis.
Mr. Speaker, where is the heart of this body?
Where is our soul?
It was Congressman John Lewis, who famously led sit-ins in the segregated South who started today's sit-in on the House floor.
Dozens of Democrats bowing to stay as long as it takes to get a vote on guns.
And it goes on like that.
I mean, he's not a civil rights leader from the 60s.
He's a civil rights icon.
He's an icon.
And the issue, as Chad Goybach said, the issue is the right to vote.
Who's against the right to vote?
What's wrong with you?
Are you against the right to vote?
I mean, and then they go on to Obama praising them for their action.
But before they get to the opposition, they're so deep in the story that most of us have already, you know, our eyes have already glazed over.
Speeches and Values00:10:23
When they do it the other way, the opposition, you know, when they're, well, I'll show you, I'll show you, because yesterday, Trump made a speech and went after Hillary Clinton, you know, with everything he had.
I mean, now, to be fair, Hillary Clinton went after him the day before with her economic speech.
She'd already gone after him on foreign policy.
And her basic attack is, this guy is going to destroy everything, and I'll just kind of tinker with things.
And I want, you know, her line was something like, America must go forward into the future.
I'm in favor of that.
Like, actually, I think we should go backward into the past.
You know, we should stand still.
How do you not go forward into the future?
I mean, she has absolutely nothing to say that she's going to do.
She is admitting, she is admitting that the Obama economy sucks, basically.
She is saying that.
But okay, let's say Trump goes after her.
Let's give a real taste of this.
Play that first Trump cut on Hillary's lies.
Hillary Clinton, and as you know, she, most people know, she's a world-class liar.
Just look at her pathetic email server statements or her phony landing in Bosnia, where she said she was under attack and the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers.
A total and serious, look, this was one of the buttes.
A total and self-serving lie.
Brian Williams' career was destroyed for saying less.
Just remember that.
Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and even theft.
She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund, doing favors for oppressive regimes and many others, and really many, many others, in exchange for cash.
Pure and simple, folks.
Then when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests, and in less than two years, secret speeches that she does not want to reveal under any circumstances to the public.
I wonder why.
Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001.
They totally own her, and that will never, ever change, including if she ever became president.
God help us.
That's good Trump stuff.
It was written.
He's reading off the teleprompter.
He's trying to convince everybody that he's not going to be a loose cannon all the time.
One of the news people said, well, that was a good speech.
Let's wait a few minutes and see if he says something stupid.
I mean, look, he's always going to be Donald Trump, but no, that was good stuff.
And this was the best part.
The second one was the best part where he really hit her on her slogan, which is, I'm with Hillary.
She believes she's entitled to the office.
Her campaign slogan is, I'm with her.
You know what my response is to that?
I'm with you, the American people.
She thinks it's all about her.
I know it's all about you.
I know it's all about making America great again for all Americans, all Americans.
Our country lost its way when it stopped putting the American people really first.
We have to go back to putting our American people first.
We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism focusing on what's good for America's middle class to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries, all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy itself.
Okay, so that's that, you know, it's a good speech because not only does he hit Hillary, but he actually says what he is going to do and what his, you know, he does not a lot of detail in there and all this, but at least we understand where he's coming from.
Where with Hillary, I really don't know.
You know, she keeps talking about infrastructure.
That's what, that's what Obama's been talking about that for eight years.
There's nothing being done on infrastructure that the federal government is going to do.
That's not going to bring jobs back.
I mean, it's private industry that brings jobs back.
He seems to understand that.
However, his trade stuff sounds crazy to me.
But okay, good speech.
Here's Hillary's response, just to play it fair before we talk about how it was covered.
Now, look, I know Donald hates it when anyone points out how hollow his sales pitch really is.
And I guess my speech yesterday must have gotten under his skin because right away he lashed out on Twitter with outlandish lies and conspiracy theories.
And he did the same in his speech today.
Now think about it.
He's going after me personally because he has no answers on the substance.
In fact, in fact, he doubled down on being the king of debt.
So all he can do is try to distract us.
That's even why he's attacking my faith.
Sigh.
And of course, attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world.
It's no surprise he doesn't understand these things.
So, you know, just to reiterate, you know, I started reading this yesterday and then ran out of time.
This thing that was hacked by Gussifer 2.0, that the Clinton Foundation stuff that she received, this is the stuff that the DNC is worried is going to come up because it was all in this book, Clinton Cash.
The Clinton Foundation received donations from individuals tied to Saudi Arabia while Clinton served as Secretary of State.
Soon after Secretary Clinton left the State Department, the Clinton Foundation received a large donation from a conglomerate run by a member of China's National People's Congress, a German investor who has lobbied Chancellor Merkel's administration, gave between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, a Venezuelan media mogul.
I mean, a lot of this stuff, she was making speeches, for instance, about natural foods when Monsanto was lobbying for, you know, to get to bring that kind of product in and to get ahead in that part of the industry.
They were giving her money while she was Secretary of State and she was giving speeches about it.
And everybody keeps saying, you know, the press keeps saying, oh, there's no smoking gun.
You know, it's a lot of smoke.
I mean, there's a lot of smoke.
And when they cover it fairly, which CNN has occasionally done, you know, they say it really does look incredibly suspicious.
And nobody, you know, how do you get the proof on that?
It's very hard to prove.
Now, so let's go back.
I'm talking about the narrative.
I'm talking about the way the left wins the narrative because even when we're fighting about gun control, okay, that's what we're fighting about now.
That's, you know, go on Twitter.
That's what the right, that's what the right is talking about.
We're talking about our Second Amendment rights, our due process rights.
We are not talking about the problem, which is Islam and the fact that, or Islam, it is Islamism.
And the question is whether Islamism is part of Islam or not.
That's the question.
And we're not talking about that at all.
You know, we're not talking about that at all.
We're talking about, we're defending ourselves because they're always on the offensive and they always have the press to back them up.
So here's how the press covers Donald Trump, right?
They fact check him as the words are coming out of his mouth.
Sometimes CNN does that with Hillary Clinton too.
But here's our friends at the Media Research Center talking about NBC, how NBC covered this.
Donald Trump delivered a condemning speech against his opponent Hillary Clinton Wednesday, explaining why he calls her crooked Hillary.
The big three networks rushed to her defense, mostly picking on the easy targets among his allegations.
But NBC's Hallie Jackson went the farthest in bending the truth to counter Trump and make Clinton look good.
Here's a quote.
Trump never won to mince words, though today not all of them were true, Jackson reported during the Nightly News.
That was her lead.
First, Jackson bent the truth regarding Trump's claim that Clinton's private email server was hacked by foreign governments.
She said, but a State Department Inspector General's report said it found no such evidence, only routine phishing.
No government official has said her emails were hacked.
But that's not entirely accurate.
According to a recent report by the State Department's Inspector General, there were two known attempts to hack into the server.
That's a huge step up from Jackson's claim of routine phishing.
But then again, this fact has been omitted from NBC's reporting in the past, most notably by reporter Andrea Mitchell when the report was first released.
And so we know, we know they were trying to hack her, and it really does look like they have.
You know, they're saying they're going to release stuff.
All these hackers are saying they're going to release material.
It looks like they've got the goods.
So, you know, just saying that that's not true is not true.
I mean, but this is the way they're reporting it.
As the words are coming out of Trump's mouth, remember, this is the first report that people who think they're getting news from NBC, this is the first report they're getting of this.
Jackson also noted the source material for some of Trump's accusations, Trump leaning heavily on the book Clinton Cash.
She said, but that book's author admits there's no evidence to prove those allegations.
Although author Peter Schweitzer did admit that he didn't have the hard evidence that he would like, he has stated that a goal of his book was to get officials involved since they have the legal authority to investigate farther than he can.
The book just piles on the stuff that is suspicious.
And he does say at the end, I haven't got her, you know, in my sights.
I haven't got a camera of her taking a bag full of money and then going off and giving a speech.
But when you look at it, when you look at the things she did, the favors she did for people, while a senator too, not just a Secretary of State, while a senator, the things that she allowed to happen, it's a dirty business.
And Trump, instead of saying, well, there's no proof, why aren't these reporters out getting proof?
Why aren't they investigating these stories?
They haven't investigated it any more than they investigated the IRS scandal.
And this kind of control of the narrative, right, it happens on the social level too.
Happiness In Households00:04:24
You know, there was a study done in England.
It says, and I attack feminism all the time because it's a lie.
I hate feminism because it elevates male values.
It elevates male values over female values.
And I have a theory about why that is happening, and I'd like to write an article about that because I want to get all the facts in a row, and then I'll come back and bring that theory to you.
But in the meantime, what I think it does is it tells women that they should be second-rate men.
It tells women that they should be second-rate men instead of being first-rate women, and that there's something less about being a woman and all the things that men care about, because men wake up every day wondering how they can get more successful, more excellent, more famous, all the things that men want, the greed, the ambition, and all that stuff that powers our lives.
A lot of women aren't like that.
Most women, I think, aren't like that.
And when you elevate only those women who are like that, you know, it was like during the NBA finals.
We had to listen to all these kind of soppy testimonials to the women's basketball.
Nobody watches women's basketball.
Nobody cares about it.
Nobody cares about it.
Why would you when you can watch these guys playing basketball at this incredible level?
The only woman sport that people care about really is tennis because they play a different game.
And it really is fun to watch women play tennis because they play a different game than the men play.
All right, so here's a study that was done by a British insurance company.
It is confirmation of what many weary commuters have secretly suspected.
Research has found that stay-at-home mothers are happier than those who go out to work.
The survey said that if staying at home with the children were counted as a job, who would count it as a job, staying home with the children, you don't do anything, you know, just eat bonbons.
But the survey said that if staying home with the children were counted as a job, it would rank as having happier workers than any other trade or profession.
Women who stay home and take care of their children, and I know this for a fact because I've seen a lot of it, are the happiest people in the world.
They are happier with their job than anybody else.
And by the way, as somebody who has lived a lot of my life in neighborhoods where women do stay home, they also have tremendous power and respect.
One of the things that people are always, you know, marriage was formed to protect women.
Western marriage was formed by the church, basically, to protect women.
And this idea that it wasn't, you know, it may have become outmoded.
There were times when, you know, women didn't have any property rights and all this stuff.
No question that advances have been made and all that.
But when you see women who take care of households and you listen to the way their husbands talk about them, you are listening to people talking about the people who matter, whose opinions matter in their lives.
Husbands who have wives like that live in their wives' good opinions.
Their wives matter to them.
Their wives' opinions matter to them.
And they, you know, the old expression, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, there's a lot of truth to that, you know.
I mean, it's a position, raising new human beings is a position of power.
Being a homemaker and a wife is a position of power.
And this idea that somehow you have more power being a secretary to some businessman who doesn't give a rats what happened to you is utterly ridiculous.
But listen to the way people report this.
A 2009 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that women, since feminism, have become less happy in general.
It's called the paradox of declining female happiness.
By many objective standards, the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men.
So men are actually getting happier.
The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various data sets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries.
Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s, before feminism really took off, typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men.
These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging, one with higher subjective well-being for men.
Men are now happier.
Of course they are.
They don't have to go to work to get to get a girl.
They don't have to get married to get a girl into bed, so they're happy.
That's what men want.
But listen to the, it's the paradox.
It's the paradox.
Objectively, meaning feministly, women have got better lives, but subjectively, they're on.
This is called a Butterfield.
A Man Who Shot Liberty Valence00:05:28
There used to be a reporter at the New York Times called Fox Butterfield, and he would report things like this.
He would say, despite the fact that more people are being incarcerated, crime is going down.
And you go, wait, what?
So that's what they're saying.
So this is what is really going on today.
Don't look at what they say they're talking about.
It's just about the narrative.
And what we should be working at, if we weren't such dopey conservatives who think the facts matter, we should be working on taking the narrative back.
I want to add a new feature, and I don't think this is the day to do it, but I'm going to add it today, but I'm going to find another day to do it.
The weird story of the week.
This is my favorite weird story this week.
A 65-year-old man died during a screening of the James Juan horror movie Conjuring Two at a theater in India.
The man and his friend went to watch the horror sequel.
However, the movie outing of the two went tragic when one of them suffered from chest pains, caused him to pass out and die during the climax of the movie.
The man was reportedly rushed to a nearby hospital and was later declared dead.
According to the Times of India, when medics gave the green light for the body to be taken to a nearby government medical college hospital for post-mortem, the corpse had disappeared along with the man who brought him in.
So I just like that story.
You go to a horror movie, not only do you die, but you vanish.
All right, stuff I like.
I shouldn't be laughing.
It's a tragic.
Maybe it's not a tragic story.
Maybe he's still walking around somewhere.
I don't know.
Anyway, stuff I like.
One of my favorite movies is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, and it's so relative, so relevant to today because it is about guns and about the press.
And it's about the narrative.
This is where the famous line comes from: print the legend.
In the West, he says, when the legend becomes the truth, you print the legend.
And that which is what the press does all the time.
All right.
Let's look at one quick scene from the movie.
Jimmy Stewart plays a lawyer who has come out west to establish law.
And he bumps into Liberty Valence, the baddest bad man you've ever met, met by Lee Marvin.
And a local tough guy played by John Wayne explains the way things work.
I mean, Liberty Valence comes in and bullies Jimmy Stewart, basically beats him up.
And this is Stewart reacting.
What did you say his name was?
The man with the silver-knobbed whip?
I said Liberty Valence.
But if that's what you gotta do, you better start packing a handgun.
A gun?
I don't want a gun.
I don't want a gun.
I don't want to kill him.
I want to put him in jail.
Oh.
Well, I know those law books mean a lot to you, but not out here.
Out here, a man settles his own problems.
No, but do you know what you're saying to me?
You know, you're saying just exactly what Liberty Valence said.
What kind of a community have I come to?
It's a really great Western, a complex story with a complex resolution.
And it features one of the great movie songs of all time.
The theme song to this was written by Burt Bachrach and Hal David, who are now virtually forgotten.
But during the 70s, they wrote hit after hit after hit.
The look of love, the theme song to Alfie, I'll Never Fall in Love Again.
I say a little prayer for you.
What the world needs now is love, sweet love.
They wrote all these classic 70s hits, but they wrote the theme song to this, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.
You have to listen to the lyrics because it tells the story.
Here's my favorite version of it, sung by James Taylor.
When Liberty Valence came to town, women folk would hide, they'd hide.
When Liberty Valence walked around, men would step aside.
Because the porn of a gun was the only law that Liberty understood.
When it came the two things straight and fast, well, he was mighty good from out of the east.
A stranger came, a law book in his hand, a man.
The kind of a man the West would need in ease in trouble land.
Cause the point of a gun was the only draw that Liberty understood.
When it came, the shootings straight and fast.
He was mighty good.
Many a man would face his gun, and many a man would fall.
A man who shot Liberty Valence, he shot Liberty Valence.
He was the bravest of them all.
I love it.
And when the final showdown came at last, a law book was no good.
That's what I said.
All right, the Clavinless weekend begins.
Hide under your beds, lock the doors, turn out the lights, don't tell anybody you're at home.
Who knows what damage these idiots will do between now and when we see you again on Monday, but we will see you again on Monday.