MON MAR 9 8 AM Visit with US Rep Chip Roy on #SAVEAct and AG race

The internet is an amazing, but risky place. Hey, Mark Davis for Incogni,

I-N-C-O-G-N-I-N-Cogni.com. Look it out for your privacy, reducing spam, calls,

junk email, giving you peace of mind. It's easy. Sign up at Incogni.com.

These search the web to find you in databases and people search sites.

Then they go to bat for you to remove your personal information.

You can track progress through your dashboard. They'll give you personal privacy reports.

So much of our lives are online with our information just out there.

Take control. It's too easy for the world to get your personal information.

Not just addresses and phone numbers, but purchase histories.

Even your political beliefs to target you for nuisance ads and even cybercrime.

With the custom removal feature, your dedicated privacy expert can take down almost

everything about you online. So be smart in your online world.

Get protected with Incogni.com.

60% discount on a family plan with the promo code Mark Davis. So get protected today.

Incogni. I-N-C-O-G-N-I-N-Cogni.com.

24 hours a day. 7 days a week.

The news never stops. Life goes on around town and around the world.

You need a talk show that keeps track of it. A program with

full opinions that's always open to your views.

That is this show. Welcome to the Mark Davis show.

On 660 A.M. The answer.

Hi everybody. Welcome. Come on in. It's hour number two here on Monday.

The ninth day of March, 2026. Hope your weekend was fantastic.

Let's go in the following order. We spent some of our opening segments here last

hour talking about Paxton V. Cornyn and that battle royal that lies ahead.

A couple of thoughts about brother Talarico here to open the

Democrat end of that because something is either happening or it's

not. I hope it is. And that is the the ultimate colossal backfire

of this guy presenting himself as a new kind of politician.

Some new approach that's more faith-based.

And I'll tell you, he roped in the always curious David French

a brain broken by TDS who now finds great things to say about even the most

sinister of Democrats in this Talarico approach. I mean, this is some

anti-Christ level stuff and I'm only exaggerating a little.

This but I'll say this for the 14th time.

If Jasmine Crockett had been the nominee. Oh, that would have been fun.

It would have been just a steady fire hose of the usual

diet tribes. Trump is Hitler, orange man, bad blah, blah, blah, you know, whatever.

This guy, this guy, the worst thing Jasmine Crockett would have done

is say really inflammatory things that I disagree with.

And that would have provided me material for months. This Talarico

critter, this guy, listen, you can be pro abortion.

You can think that open borders are awesome.

You can think there are six genders or however many. You can have those ideas

banging around in your head. I mean, it's America.

But when you step into the marketplace and say

that Jesus holds these views, when you step into a political race and say that

God is on your side in those blasphemies, that's a whole

another smoke. And this is what this guy is doing. And when I say it's

blowing up in his face, it only matters if it's blowing up in his face

among Democrats. I mean, aren't please, I know there are Democrats in

church. And I know there is a thing. It's an oxymoron, the religious left,

the progressive church. I mean, again, listen, you can be what,

you can have a church that believes all kinds of things.

But when you argue that scripture is on your side with this gender lunacy,

that scripture is on your side is kindness in the Bible.

Of course, treating people well, absolutely, welcoming people,

absolutely. But by what perversion are we to understand that Jesus requires

open borders that that that's not true. Any more than the notion about being a

welcoming soul means that you have to leave your doors unlocked and welcome

vagrants into your kitchen. No, no. So when I say that this is backfiring,

blowing up in his face, that's only from conservatives. Now, here's the thing.

What are, what are Democrats going to do? There may be Democrats in actual church

who are, you know, more liberal than me, center left, whatever, you know, not

radical, just Democrats, who's been a Democrat your whole life.

And you're going to vote for this guy. And you may be somewhat repelled

by the degree to which he seeks to co-opt Jesus into his radical views.

What are you going to do? Vote for Paxton or vote for Cornon if he's the nominee?

Probably not. So I don't know the degree to which it really damages him in the general.

But I guess you go to the independent vote. The people who sort of wake up in the

morning and flip a coin to decide Democrat Republican. I don't know.

But maybe there's some shred of conscience to these people.

And they may not even be people of all that deep of faith.

But they view it as the height of dishonesty that somebody would try to,

to, to, to shoehorn God, shoehorn the Bible into their political views. And these people,

these last few days, this faunting coverage. Oh, he's a, he's a new kind of politician. Yeah,

tell me something that's new. I put a little challenge out there, did it on social media,

and I'll do it with you. Give me one liberal view that James Talleriko does not hold.

Give me, there may be a couple. Oh, no. Give me a liberal view that James Talleriko does not hold.

And if you can't find one, or if they are sparse, then there's no new kind of politician.

Happening here. There's no, you fresh approach. It's just a guy trying to put biblical lipstick on a pig.

It is a packaging deception. It's a bait and switch. It is fraud. So just spare me.

Yees. Alright, 866, 666, 057, 599. In a minute,

latest in war coverage, Alice Bar on NBC, took a look at sort of the broad notion of

Iran tensions, creating market tensions, a boost in gas prices. These things are absolutely going

to happen. You could have foreseen them. I did foreseal them. And I'm not Einstein.

Will it last a while? Yes, it will. Could it be weeks? Yes. Will it be many, many months? Probably not.

We have a new Supreme Leader in Iran. I don't know what the overunder is for this guy's tenure.

Much to buy a Khameini son of the freshly dead Ali Khameini, the previous Supreme Leader,

Blondabits in the American operation. No, so we'll have a little war overview in a second.

Let me, and let me put this out here for you and ask some questions about this. We'll go to the

phones on it. 866, 666, 057, 599. Mike and I brought it up. Sometimes little things mean a lot.

Sometimes little things are not so little things, right? Showing respect for our returning fallen

is a very, very big thing. So I'm watching the dignified transfer. And we've seen this

our entire lives. Dover Air Force Base. How did Dover wind up being the go-to for that? I'll look it up.

And you have a transport plane. And the big back door goes down. And in a very, very solemn

procession. Paul Bears bring out the caskets of those Americans who've lost their lives in a war

effort. It is a moment of enduring tradition, respect, mourning, just every proper attitude that we

reflect toward those people who gave their lives, wearing uniform for this country.

So as part of the line, past which the caskets are carried, President Trump,

Melania, JD Vance, and Usha. And there is the men are saluting. Women have their hands over their

hearts. And on top of President Trump's head, a white cap that says USA.

Problem. So Mike and I talked about this. And just to return you to the thought process that I

went and pardon me for a minute, I, without too much delay, I'll instantly say, how's this going

to work out for him? You know, if it helps us with the midterms, it's good. If it hurts us in

the midterms, it's bad. All right. I just have everything else seen through that lens.

And you know, the top index card in my stack of index cards, don't give the other side

something to beat your brains in with. But here's the thing. Did that really happen?

The people who went into high dungeon, the people who were mightily,

mightily offended. Oh, oh, he found a way to disrespect even his own word of the disrespect.

And is there anybody who said that who even likes the president a little?

I mean, there are people who have a high opinion of the president who said,

not my favorite thing, all of the things being equal, take the hat off, that would probably be me.

But does it matter? I mean, profoundly, did I view it in the least as even a molecule of

disrespect? I did not. And anyone who does is flirting with or wholly immersing themselves in TDS.

Somebody said, you know, what if Obama did that? Well, you know, Obama gave us the military as a

social experimentation, Petri Dish. You know, it was, it was not the military friendliest of

presidencies. And there invariant lies the difference. Therein lies the difference. I will tell you,

let's say Obama had done it and won a cap of the American flag. I just said, you know,

the cap's not my favorite thing. American flags on there. He's there. He's saluting,

get off his back a little bit. But one of these things is not like the other. So if you're looking

for someone who is quite the traditionalist and quite the observer of decorum at moments like this,

if you're looking for me, the bag on Trump for wearing the USA cap, look elsewhere.

All right, to the phones. Dan, welcome. Happy Monday.

Whoops. Hang on a second. Hey, Dan, how you doing? Hey, Mark, I'm doing well. I'll try to put

this to bed as best I can for us. Patriots. I like to say I was retired military, but I actually

was in the Air Force. But when I saw before I knew there was a controversy over this and I saw

President Trump saluting with a hat. I had no offense at all. I don't think he amended any

offense. And I don't think any was given. And he is the commander in chief. He can like any

commander or any base. I mean, we used to wear ball caps when I was in the Air Force. They were,

they were not regular uniform, but the, but the base commanders could come up and say, this is

the uniform of the day or uniform for the post. You don't wear them off the base or whatever,

but you may wear them here to identify each other. But he is the commander in chief. And as a

retired Air Force member, a military member, it is proper for me to say when the National Anthem

plays, and if I was at a baseball game, to not remove my hat because I'll be rendering

a salute. And, and to me, Trump wearing that ball cap was no different or not much. I know

he gave him some ammo, but they're not a fine ammo anyway. The colonel, the colonel that we

saw wearing his hat and the scrambled eggs, he's there. He's going to render a salute. He will

not take his hat off. I, and it's, it's so you then you get to the notion of, is it, is it

quoted, quote, part of the uniform? Obviously, commanders in chief don't technically wear a uniform,

but your point is still precisely strong. And, and again, it falls back to intent. If there was

this, the slightest slight, then, then anybody could perceive or portray that would be one thing,

but it's just not. And thank you. Appreciate it very, very much. It's just not. Now, if, if Trump

or any president shows up at the dignified transfer and it's a Yankees cap, that's another matter.

But it wasn't. This is a ridiculous non-controversy. All right, 866, 666, 575, 9th, Mark Davis, 821.

1959,

Lloyd Price,

personality, personality,

the great Lloyd Price born in Kenner, Louis, Ziana. This date 1933,

8866, 660, 575, 9th, we are in South Lake, Mark. Welcome. Happy Monday.

And happy Monday to you and everybody else out there.

Howdy. I saw John Warner on, on, on one of the Sunday shows or whatever. I saw Adam

Schiff and all the Democrats using the same soundbite of, they haven't seen

any evidence of an imminent threat, you know, for us to launch this attack against Iran. And

has anybody asked them to, you know, what does, to you, what does an imminent threat look like?

I mean, is it, is it a missile, you know, going on a downward trajectory into New York?

Exactly. Exactly.

Oh, but, you know, they say this and it's just like, okay, what exactly do you mean by that?

So I'll sit back and listen and everybody have a great day.

Well, we, it's, it's made better by your very insightful question. Thank you, sir.

Imminence, that we're, we're the words mean things talk show. What is imminent means? It means,

it's about to happen, as opposed to evident, which is outstanding in its field, like an

imminent professing. Imminence is about to happen. Like this is about to happen. It is

imminent. It is about to happen. Uh, so how does that shake out with regard to the catalyst for

this war? As the negotiations went south in a hurry and it became clear, and Steve Whitkoff,

our main guy at the negotiating table, saw that Iran was flaunting, not, not flouting,

flaunting, uh, to flout is to disobey or disregard to flaunt is to show off in a,

in an ostentatious way. Uh, it's a nuclear rebuilding capability and telegraph that even this,

this is, there is one good question you can ask. Didn't we bomb that back into the Stone Age,

not so very long ago? What the heck is going on when they're able to get that proficient again

in such short order? All right, props to them for reassembling some stuff. Uh, but it's not

something that we can tolerate. And if we couldn't tolerate it, you know, that Israel definitely

couldn't tolerate it. So allies thinking and working jointly saw that this was a situation that

was completely untenable, completely unsustainable. Iran was just inexorably moving toward a nuclear

weapon with which to terrorize the region. And this is completely unacceptable, unacceptable to us,

unacceptable to Israel. So in conversations taking place alongside those negotiations that we're

going up in flames, it became pretty clear to Israel that it's time. And with us writing alongside

our Israeli allies as they write alongside us with various things that have been happening

in the Middle East for low these many decades, it became jointly obvious that this could not

be allowed to continue. As the gentleman properly asks, what does imminent mean? Would people have

been happier if we decided to do something? Hopefully, hopefully able to blow a long range

missile out of the sky before it hits the shoreline of America? Would, would that have been okay?

Would Adam Schiff have been okay with that? Would Democrats have been okay with that operation?

Or isn't it better to remove this threat before the missile is launched? Isn't it better

to eradicate this danger before it becomes such a danger that it's a nail-biter that maybe

Iran is going to actually kill some Americans? Would these folks be better if maybe we had some

dead Americans that we could react to? Wow, wish we had done something earlier.

Wouldn't you rather say I'm glad we did things when we did that I wish we had done it sooner?

So how imminent does a threat have to be? About this imminent is the answer. With imminent meaning,

Iran was about to do something. There was never any doubt that they wanted to do this.

Listen, I'm just a radio guy and I told you months ago this deal with Iran,

not going to happen. Absolutely worth pursuing. 100% diplomatic route will, of course,

you try that. Absolutely. But when it fails, you have to act. And this was always going to fail

because Iran was never going to be an honest broker. They were never going to negotiate

in good faith. Alrighty, Chip Roy is in Congress. We're going to talk to him about some

save act about that AG campaign. His runoff against Magame is Middleton. So we'll talk about that

with him and a bunch of things with you next. Mark Davis, 60 AM, the answer, 831.

837 on a Monday. Each day brings us closer to

the May 26th runoff and take a lot more days. What are we at? 10 11 weeks of this? Oh my gosh,

the Paxton, the Corning, what are we going to do? And in the Attorney General's race, it's

May's Middleton and Chip Roy. Let's talk to Chip. He's got a couple of hats. We'll get to the AG

candidate hat in a second. But first up, let's go to the world of Congress and talk about a

couple of things going on because there's always no shortage. Chip Roy, welcome sir. How you doing?

Good morning, Mark. How are you doing? Fantastic. Thank you. Well, if anybody had not heard of or

gotten worked up about the save act before, they certainly have now with the last few days of

really interesting pressure tactics to get this thing through the Senate. Where do you think this

thing stands? Because you obviously had a lot to say there at the House of Representatives

end of things about the save act. What's going on? And what do you think's going to happen?

Well, Mark, and you alluded to it. It's been so complex. It would take me probably an hour to walk

through all the angles of this in a meaningful way, but we don't have that. So let me take a shot.

We've talked about this before and your listers are pretty smart. So they're going to know the

Save America Act is right. The core part is the Save Act, which is American citizens guaranteeing

that only citizens vote by checking voter rolls, having a process by which we check citizenship.

And then we added voter ID, right? And we made it the Save America Act.

Worked with the president. We all generally agree. There are other issues that have been of course

floating around for some time. Mail imbalance. There are myriad other issues that we all want to

address on election integrity. And we have legislation to do that. And in fact, we have a very

significant omnivast bill that one of my colleagues put together with all of our help. And it's

a good bill, but it deals with other things too, like early voting, like ranked choice voting and

other stuff. So we've been trying to figure out the right package. So right now, the question,

we've got the Save America Act passed out of the House. It's in a Senate bill, which is

a code for it will get past certain hurdles in the Senate faster. We did that on purpose. In fact,

the president alluded to that. So that bill is sitting over there in the House, which means it's

on the fastest track possible. I am sorry, sitting over in the Senate. So we're trying to figure out

how to get the Senate to also circumvent or work pass or work through their traditional

cloture vote process for filibustering. Now, that again is like an hour-long discussion,

but the dumbest way of putting it is the Senate totally do three things. Establish a quorum,

vote, or speak. That's it. So all we're saying is conform to the Senate rules and actually

filibuster. What the Senate typically does is sits there like fake establishing a quorum until they

decide what vote they're going to have at a 60-vote threshold. That's not what the American people want,

like Mr. Smith goes to Washington, Margaret. You've seen it. I've seen it. Jimmy Stewart,

famous movie, we're saying go to the floor and debate it out. Our perspective is if you do that,

this will be my final point. The Civil Rights Act, a 64, was on the floor in the Senate for three

months. They had to overcome, I've heard different numbers, 25 to 31 votes, that they were shy in

getting to what they had as their quote, cloture vote in 1964. All clotures, that number,

that 60-vote number, all that is is a guaranteed way to shut off debate. But you don't have to do that.

You can put it on the floor and debate it and then let the American people turn up the pressure.

That's what we're asking leader Thun to do. And I think the pressure is growing, the president

calling on it. But the reason I brought up that first thing about, do we add mail-in ballots,

do we add, early voting, those bathrooms, do we add transgender surgeries. And those are all

issues we all support, right? We want to address those issues, notwithstanding certain slanderers

ads being run against me. And we want to be able to, we want to be able to get those done,

the question is can we, can we work that through the Senate? Right now we have a product over there

that has 80 plus percent support across the country. So we have maximum pressure on Republicans to

put it on the floor and vote. So that's what we're trying to do. Has there been any excuse for Thun

or any other senators I could name being slow to bang the drum for this? Has it been

our usual easy to caricature establishment sloth that has led to this not happening? It seems

like a no-brainer. People I can get 500 calls right now and I bet you get the same calls.

If this is such a no-brainer, why in the world is it so tough to pass?

Okay, so allow me to say one thing that is I'm going to, and I'm going to be careful here. I'm

I think they should put it on the floor. I don't think there is an excuse. I think their default

position is their sloppiness. That is we don't want to have to work. We don't have to be there late.

We don't want to have to show up to force the votes. We don't want to have to sit there and do

that hard work for three months. It's easier for us to go on trips, you know, go to fundraisers,

go to have meals, blah, blah, blah. Okay, that's the cynical, and that's the view that I generally

hold that they're that they're not doing the hard work. If I were going to be generous and there

is some reasonability to these arguments, I would say one, once you start the clock, you can't

break off of it if you're going to try to beat them. And we still have to figure out and navigate

the DHS funding exercise. Now what I said is I would package to save America act with DHS funding.

And I would then turn the pressure up on them and say, TSA lines, you guys can fix election

integrity and you can solve the TSA lines right now, vote for this bill. Okay, so that would have

been my play. But okay, whatever, pick your play. But that's a question. How do we deal with DHS

funding? The second question that I don't think is a problem, but I'm giving you the arguments

they'll make. They will say that Democrats will be able to all unlimited amendments to which I say

fine. Let them. That's what we do in the budget process. Yep. Let them do it. And if they want to do

it, table the amendments. And they say, oh, but that'll be really hard. People have to vote down

really tough things. It's hard. Look, Mark, I sit on the rules committee in the house every week.

Democrats offer all sorts of amendments. They've offered my own bill as an amendment to try to put

me in a bad spot. So I have to vote against something I like or that people care about. I vote

against it anyway, you know what? That's called discipline. Don't take the bait. Don't fall

into the trap. Just table the amendments, stand up on the floor, do your work, message it,

and win the fight. That's all we're asking for. And I just think they're I think they're defaulting

to the easy. I think that's the real reason. Congressman chip Roy is here. We'll get to AG stuff

here in a second because that's what you're running what he's running for now. Last thing on

Save Act and any other congressional business you want to get to. Am I reading you correctly

that in adding into the Save America Act, some trans things, no boys and girls sports,

no surgeries, no horrific surgeries for minors, which we all know is the right thing to do.

Right. Do I sense from you a certain hesitancy because dog on it that just might make the

thing harder to pass? Well, I'm for doing it if we're all in. Yep. Okay. So like when we we

were setting up the structure, remember these things all take processes, right? Like no matter what

I say, I mean, like I'm going to go ahead and say it again about the AG's race. My opponent,

Mays Middleton was lying to you and the voters in saying that I was settling up with the transgender

lobby because I was trying to come up with strategies to get it passed. Okay. Now I'm trying now to

figure out how do we break the back of the filibuster that is and it's not the filibuster. I should

stop saying it that way. How do we break the back of the fake filibuster, right? How do we break

the back of the Senate that refuses to do its job? The easiest way in my view was to keep a very

clean, simple message and then force the Democrats have to own it like an 80% issue. Now we debated

and I threw out and suggested I suggested to the White House and the House leadership more issues

like trans, like bathrooms, like mail and ballots. Frankly, a couple of other issues.

Said, look, you want to put a package together and then we like make a big message about what

this is about. And I think the president at the time, it was decided to keep it simpler. And I told

the speaker, I will fight whichever way you guys choose, but that's above my pay rate. It's up to

the White House and the leadership. They chose to keep it simple. And so we added, they voted

right. That was the same American act we marched ahead. The president wants mail and ballots

agreed. The president wants to address bathrooms and transgender agree fully. We just have to

figure out what can we do to break the back of the fake filibuster? Is it possible? Is it possible?

Because you know this happens in politics too and sometimes it works. Not that it's being sabotaged,

but we're throwing in all kinds of things that real conservatives want, that you and I will advocate,

that will get some pushback so that the president or you or I can say, look, look at the kind of people

that made it impossible to pass the save act so that they'll carry those passions to know them.

It could be that there's a foregone conclusion that we can't get the Senate to do the right things,

to pile in four or five other issues, and then blame the Democrats for not giving us 60 votes,

saying we tried, we tried everything we could, etc. Because ultimately there will be votes on this,

okay? The only question is whether we will make a real concerted effort to try to break

the fake filibuster by putting it on the floor and forcing people to debate or whether they will

default to, soon putting it on the floor, filling up the amendment tree, we call it, which means

don't allow the Dems to offer amendments, we offer amendments, force X number of days of debate,

maybe a week, maybe two weeks, demonstrate the Democrats are committed against it, except for

maybe Federman, and then you know switch gears and then have the 60 vote, you know, have a vote at

60 votes to shut off debate, it would fail, and then move on to another topic, right? Like that

seems like the normal default position, and we're trying to break that. So look, I will do whatever

the leadership in the White House wants to do on this front. Right now I'm staying on message,

move the Save America Act, and if that's what we have currently, which is voter ID and citizenship,

great, let's break them on it, and then let's move another one. Chip Roy is here.

Running friendly, I got about two, three minutes to do some AG stuff, which I know you want to do,

and I'll listen, I'm loving it all. And we'll be visiting often to be sure. So I had May's

on, warning after the, after March 3rd, he said, so what do you got, 11, 12 weeks of you calling

Chip Roy a backstab in Rhino? Pretty well. So here's your opportunity to explain why you're not.

Well, I'll accept the premise of the negative and respond to the negative.

May's Middleton is a trust fund kid who is spending $18 million of his own money to try to

convince the people of Texas that I'm something that I'm not. While leaving out one really important

fact, he's never really practiced law. He's never really been in a courtroom. He's never prosecuted,

bad guys I have. He's never run the Office of Attorney General. I have. I, with respectfully,

I wouldn't hire May's Middleton into the Office of the Attorney General except that a very basic

level because he has no discernible legal skills. The fact here is this is not a job or on the job

training. And you know, Mark, like my voting record is extraordinarily aligned with the president.

And anybody objective knows that. They know that I've led on most of the issues the president

cares about that I'm aligned with the president and talk to the president and move stuff through.

I call the president. We work together. The president last Friday in Corpus Christi said,

great job at the microphone. What May's is trying to do is frankly lie to people in Dallas,

Fort Worth area and across the state of Texas by saying things that are not true. Like for example,

we just talked about the trans issue. All I was doing in December was trying to come up with a bill

that was built on a spending mechanism so we could get the Senate. We could move it through the

Senate procedurally and have a better political way to achieve either the same objective or close

to the same objective. And so my so so May's goes and says Chip Roy is cobbling up with the

transgender lobby. Well, that's besides being offensive. It's completely false. I mean,

doors by Chloe Cole, one of the most wonderful human beings. D transition rate is ad because

because she went through the transgender process. I've been fighting for it. Dr. Haim, I held a

hearing on this issue, led the fight to expose children's hospital in Texas. May's tried to say,

oh, chips caught you're the president. Well, when the he put up a tweet, the president put out.

Well, remember at the time, Mark, in December of 24, we were in transition. I said to the White House,

hey, or the incoming White House, we're not going to get a clean disaster, a clean dead ceiling

increase, five or six trillion dollars. And that proved to be true. In the process of all that,

some politicals in the White House decided they wanted to put pressure on me by putting that

tweet out. As it guys, it's not going to change the vote. It didn't not my vote or anybody else's

vote. And no conservatives in Texas wanted a five trillion dollar dead ceiling increase.

So what did I ultimately do? Worked with the president delivered on the big beautiful bill.

Biggest tax cuts in history, a trillion and a half of spending reductions, Medicaid reform,

green new scam subsidies. Cutting by the way, a green new scam pack in California,

spent a trillion, I'm sorry, a million dollars in ads against me in a Republican primary.

Now, why would they do that? Why would leftists go after me in a in a primary? It's because they

think I'll fight them in May's won't. Fact is, you have to wear the battle scars of standing

up as an independent voice in order for voters to know that you will fight for them in the court

as an independent attorney general who will follow the law in the Constitution. I could go issue by

issue and all of its skirl as attacks and lies. Oh, we will. People know me. They know who I am.

They know what I fought for. And I tell you what, we're going out, we're raising money right now

and it's coming in great. We're going to go toe to toe dollar for dollar. And the state of Texas

is going to know that he has no business. Being a low level attorney in the office of attorney general

must be much less being the attorney general. The website is chipproy.com. Twitter feed is chipproy

tx congressman chipproy. We'll be talking about aging and congressional things moving forward.

Thanks for your time. We always appreciate the visit. God bless Mark take care. That is

congressman chipproy. He and bag of mails will be back and forth back and forth. You know that

till May 26th. Mark Davis 660 AM yet.

It's good in 1982.

Here on the quiet store.

The great Jeffrey Osborne.

The only way to be 78 today. All right. All right. All right. All right. It's time to play

how that workout for you 866 666 05 759. Let's head into the 9 o'clock hour. There's chip Roy.

The backstabbing rhino charge is overstated period. It just is. However,

May's Middleton comes at you with a message that seems a little more conservative and doesn't

seem to require as much explanation. Let's let's how did the chip visit strike you. I'm a big

fan of chip have been for a long time. But that ain't the issue. The issue is these two guys want

to be attorney general. How's that going to work out? I got some thoughts. Maybe you do too. 866 660 5759. Let's

make that one of the things we do in the 9 o'clock hour, which is next. Mark Davis 660 AM the answer.