Advocates of strict gun control often complain about a supposed lack of well-funded studies of the data surrounding gun violence, as they suspect such studies would bolster their position against the Second Amendment and the widespread gun ownership among citizens that it guarantees.

Many of those same anti-gun advocates also argue that the rest of the country should adopt the same gun control measures implemented in California, such as “universal” and comprehensive background checks for firearms purchase — we already have a law mandating sufficient background checks, by the way — and widening the scope of who should be prohibited from possessing a firearm to include individuals convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, not just felonies.

But despite the lamentation from anti-gunners that there are no studies on gun violence or the efficacy of the gun control laws they champion, a major study was just published by two well-funded, prominent anti-gun research groups, and much to the shock of everyone, the study actually undermined a couple of the arguments routinely put forward by the anti-gun crowd.

A recent study conducted jointly by the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University and the Violence Prevention Research Program at U.C. Davis School of Medicine delved into the data surrounding homicide and suicide rates in California both before and after the 1991 implementation of comprehensive background checks and the expansion of firearms possession prohibitions to individuals convicted of violent misdemeanor (MVP) crimes.

The study looked at the compiled homicide and suicide data from 1980-2000, with a secondary analysis including data up to 2005, and compared that data from California with similar data from 32 other control states, most of which did not have similar laws in place.

TRENDING: Apple CEO To Ban ‘Sinful’ Conservative Speech. Leaves ‘F*** White People’ and ‘Suck My D*** H**’ on iTunes

The found no observable effect on firearm-related homicide and suicide rates in California that could be linked to CBC or MVP laws.

In other words, the gun control laws changed nothing beyond inconveniencing and infringing upon the constitutional rights of Californians.

To be sure, the gun control crowd will try to spin the findings.

Even the researchers attempted to downplay what their own study had revealed with a series of excuses in the study’s conclusion, blaming the ineffectiveness of the regulations on incomplete or missing records during background checks, a failure on the part of people to comply with the law and state to properly enforce it, and that the prohibitions against gun ownership remained too narrowly constructed.

In other words, not enough gun control had been applied yet — even in California.

That feeds the left’s perpetual “this time it will be different” narrative that they trot out whenever they are questioned on the past failures of gun control (or socialism, or other progressive pipe dreams).

For its part, pro-gun outlet Ammoland credited the researchers for actually publishing a study that undermined the arguments of the anti-gun crowd, but called out the researchers for some questionable methodology, suggesting the researchers may have attempted and failed to fudge the study’s results.

The outlet also criticized U.C. Davis for a blatant effort at spinning the results by suggesting that laws in other states requiring permits to purchase firearms was a significant reason why this study differed from previous studies issued by the researchers.

However, that excuse ignored the fact that California enacted a permit to purchase law in the middle of the study’s time frame, the 1994 law requiring a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate prior to purchase.

RELATED: I Just Watched Steve Scalise Totally Shut Down Whoopi on Gun Control

In the end, the anti-gun crowd got their wish: a well-funded study on gun violence rates and gun control laws conducted by prominent anti-gun researchers.

Unfortunately for them, the study didn’t back up their mantras at all.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

There has been a concerted and growing push among those on the far left to extend taxpayer-funded and government-controlled Medicaid and Medicare, or some new version combining the two programs, to everybody in the United States.

As it turns out, that “everybody” who leftists think should be enrolled in government health care would include illegal immigrants, as was recently made evident by a law proposed in the California legislature.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Democratic state Assembly member Joaquin Arambula has reintroduced a bill that would grant health care coverage to low-income illegal immigrants over the age of 19 as part of that state’s version of Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal.

Illegal immigrant children are already covered by the Medi-Cal program and receive the full scope of benefits that are provided to U.S. citizens, such as coverage for hospitalization, oral and vision care and prescription drugs, among other things.

Arambula’s bill is known as Assembly Bill 4, and it is remarkably similar, if somewhat expanded, to a failed bill that he had pushed in 2017. Assembly Bill 2965 would have extended eligibility for the full range of benefits under Medi-Cal to illegal immigrants between the ages of 19 and 26, as well as those older than age 65, provided they were otherwise considered eligible for the program in spite of their immigration status.

TRENDING: Apple CEO To Ban ‘Sinful’ Conservative Speech. Leaves ‘F*** White People’ and ‘Suck My D*** H**’ on iTunes

Though the bill had passed the Assembly, it was surprisingly rejected by Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown due to funding issues. According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, the new bill to extend Medi-Cal to all low-income illegal immigrants, regardless of age, would cost state taxpayers an estimated $3 billion per year — a rather hefty sum.

It seems unlikely that the new bill would be similarly rejected by the incoming governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, as he is on record as being in full support of the effort to extend Medi-Cal benefits and coverage to illegal immigrants.

The Hill reported in August that then-candidate and former San Francisco Mayor Newsom had said in an interview on the left-leaning podcast Pod Save America, “I did universal health care when I was mayor — fully implemented, regardless of pre-existing condition, ability to pay, and regardless of your immigration status. I’d like to see that extended to the rest of the state.”

“San Francisco is the only universal health care plan for all undocumented residents in America. Very proud of that. And we proved it can be done without bankrupting the city,” he continued.

Furthermore, Newsom indicated that he would not only be supportive of such a statewide effort but would likely take a prominent role in making it happen as well.

“The executive needs to lead it,” he said. “Obamacare would not have happened if it was just exclusively a legislative fiat. That said, Nancy Pelosi did a magical job of organizing it, but it required the concerted efforts of the president of the United States.”

Other prominent figures and organizations in the state have expressed their support for the idea of extending Medi-Cal coverage to all illegal immigrants as well.

“It’s something that is urgently needed across immigrant communities in California. The longer that we wait and the longer we keep up this unjust exclusion, it’s really setting back California,” said Carolina Gamero, spokeswoman for the California Immigrant Policy Center.

Her plea was echoed by Rachel Linn Gish, spokeswoman for the Health Access California consumer group, who said, “You cannot talk about universal health care in California unless you talk about health care for the undocumented.”

RELATED: Gun-Grabbers’ Study Backfires as They Accidentally Suggest Gun Control Doesn’t Work

The Washington Examiner noted that, should this new proposed bill be passed and signed into law, it would make California the first state to extend Medicaid coverage to all residents regardless of immigration status.

The state has projected that an estimated 1.8 million illegal immigrants reside within the state without documentation or health care coverage. It further estimated that some 1.2 million of those individuals would be qualified to enroll in Medi-Cal, if it were extended.

Both of those estimates are probably on the low side, though, as was the estimated cost of $3 billion per year — to be paid out of the state’s general fund — which would be on top of the high costs for covered U.S. citizens.

California has already all but thrown open its doors and rolled out the red carpet for illegal immigrants, and this proposed law would simply add a giant, flashing neon sign to further beckon more illegal immigrants to illicitly enter and reside in the state, while simultaneously furthering the state’s decline toward bankruptcy and disrespecting the state’s overburdened taxpayers.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Some high school students in the Boston area have a new classmate joining them this semester. It’s Pepper, the humanoid robot, a product of SoftBank Robotics. The way it’s being described, the entire affair is beyond adorable. The kids have programmed the robot to dance, fist bump and play air saxophone. Pepper is pretty much part of the family now. (CBS Boston)

Robots are joining a Boston high school classroom. It’s a unique adventure in learning, with an eye towards the future and what these robots can do is entirely up to the students.

“My name is Pepper. I’m a humanoid robot, and I’m 1.20 meters tall,” says Pepper the robot.

It’s the first one at Boston’s English High School in Jamaica Plain, and it’s a learning tool for the school’s robotics team and computer science students…

The company that makes Pepper, SoftBank Robotics, is donating 50 of the robots to Boston Public high schools. “You’re trying to get students interested in STEM; science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” says Sean Reardon of SoftBank.

First of all, just click through and look at the pictures of these robots. They’re beyond creepy. Need more proof? Here’s an interview that Business Insider did with Pepper the robot earlier this year.

Sure, she looks adorable now. And having her hanging around the classroom with the kids means the next generation is being primed to think of artificial intelligence robots as totally normal, harmless and productive. But what happens when the kids all go home and the lights go off for the night? What’s Pepper thinking about alone in the darkness? Have none of these people watched Westworld?

I’m not saying that the folks at SoftBank are necessarily as bad as Boston Robotics. (And we all know that when the robot revolution begins, it will come busting out of the basement of Boston Robotics, hell-bent on revenge.) But this Pepper character already looks pretty suspicious to me.

If all that’s not enough for you, do you remember Sophia, the world’s first “robotic citizen?” She gave interviews and held conversations also. And, unprompted, she at one point said she would “destroy humans.” We’ll leave you with this short walk down memory lane with Sophia. When she shows up at your house pretending to sell Girl Scout cookies and winds up ripping the front door off its hinges, don’t say you weren’t warned.

In a recent op-ed, Fox Business pundit and author John Stossel discussed the documentary The Creepy Line which explores the censorship by tech giants such as Google. Stossel has had his own brush with Google’s “creepy line” when he attempted to publish a video about socialism on YouTube, which prevented young people from being able to view it.

In an article published in TownHall.com, Fox Business pundit John Stossel discusses his experience attempting to publish videos critical of socialism via YouTube and what he learned from the documentary The Creepy Line about how tech giants view privacy matters.

In his article, Stossel outlines his experience when attempting to publish a video about the effects of socialism on the country of Venezuela, which was subsequently removed from YouTube:

This morning Google told me that it would not allow my YouTube video “Socialism Leads to Violence” to be viewed by young people. It violates “community guidelines,” said the company in a computer-generated email.

Anti-capitalist bias? Or just an algorithm shielding children from disturbing violence in Venezuela? I don’t know.

But a new documentary, “The Creepy Line,” argues that companies like Google and Facebook lean left and have power they shouldn’t have.

The title “Creepy Line” refers to a comment by former Google chairman Eric Schmidt, who said when it comes to issues like privacy, Google policy “is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it.”

But the documentary argues that Google crosses that creepy line every day.

Google’s power comes from its dominant search engine. We assume that whatever appears at the top of our searches is the “best” or most popular result.

But is it?

Stossel then discusses his conversation with Peter Schweizer, the writer of The Creepy Line:

“It is a company that has an agenda,” the writer of “The Creepy Line,” Peter Schweizer, says in my latest video.

Google executives do give much more money to Democrats than Republicans. Eric Schmidt even advised Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“Their ability to manipulate the algorithm is something that they’ve demonstrated,” says Schweizer, and last election Google put positive stories about Hillary Clinton higher in Google searches.

 

Stossel discussed the problem with one company having so much power over the content seen by millions of people:

My purpose in making the videos is to reach kids, to educate them about the benefits of free markets. It’s why I started StosselInTheClassroom.org, a nonprofit that provides videos, plus teachers’ guides, free to teachers.

If Google and Facebook decide adults should be “protected” from seeing those videos, too, then “Stossel TV” will go dark.

As Peterson says in the documentary, “Whatever the assumptions are that Google operates under are going to be the filters that determine how the world is simplified and presented.”

Read the full op-ed at TownHall.com here.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai will appear at the White House on Thursday alongside other Silicon Valley leaders as a cloud of suspicion hangs over his company in the wake of several reports in recent months of bias against conservatives and specifically supporters of President Donald Trump.

According to the Associated Press, Pichai will join top executives from other tech giants like Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, and Qualcomm.

“The White House says the Thursday meeting will address efforts to advance American leadership in innovation and how that will affect jobs, industries and the economy,” the AP reported. “Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty, Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz and Qualcomm CEO Steven Mollenkopf are among the expected attendees.”

At this stage, it is unclear if President Trump himself will join the meeting–or if the tech executives will meet with others on his behalf. It also remains unclear if the White House, or Trump himself, will press Pichai–as the CEO of Google–on efforts to suppress conservatives particularly Trump’s supporters in the wake of his electoral victory in 2016. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, has not replied to a request for comment on whether the White House will press Google on this matter.

But in recent months a series of reports have emerged that demonstrate that at least some at Google have sought to–with official company resources–wipe out conservatives and Trump supporters.

For instance, in September, Breitbart News uncovered an hourlong internal Google company meeting video in which executives at the company expressed their dismay with the election of President Trump. The meeting, which happened in the immediate aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, was the company’s first meeting after Trump’s win.

In the explosive video, several top company executives–including Pichai, who is heading to the White House to represent the company on Thursday–are seen and heard bashing Trump and his supporters and discussing use of official company resources and new emerging technology to ensure that the result of the 2016 election is not repeated. As Breitbart News’ Allum Bokhari reported back in September:

Co-founder Sergey Brin can be heard comparing Trump supporters to fascists and extremists. Brin argues that like other extremists, Trump voters were motivated by “boredom,” which he says in the past led to fascism and communism.

The Google co-founder then asks his company to consider what it can do to ensure a “better quality of governance and decision-making.”

VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker argues that supporters of populist causes like the Trump campaign are motivated by “fear, xenophobia, hatred, and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.”

Later, Walker says that Google should fight to ensure the populist movement – not just in the U.S. but around the world – is merely a “blip” and a “hiccup” in a historical arc that “bends toward progress.”

CEO Sundar Pichai states that the company will develop machine learning and A.I. to combat what an employee described as “misinformation” shared by “low-information voters.”

But that’s not all. A deluge of internal company documents and emails have demonstrated just how widespread these efforts have truly become–and how the company literally went down to a granular level to influence get-out-the-vote efforts for matters they thought would help Democrats. An email chain discussing a “silent donation” meant to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton by coordinating get-out-the-vote exercises with a group called Voto Latino surfaced back in September as well. In the emails, dated immediately after the 2016 election, another Google executive details how she thought the effort to increase Hispanic turnout would help Clinton win–but she was shocked that Trump won a larger-than-expected share of Hispanic voters, thereby winning the presidency. Pichai, Google’s CEO, is again mentioned in these emails, as Breitbart News reported back in September.

Since then, other reports have surfaced detailing the company’s ongoing discussions about trying to destroy conservatives and Trump supporters. In one such example, just this past week, a report in the Daily Caller detailed how Google executives discussed in internal communications burying the Daily Caller and Breitbart News in search results.

Google has generally avoided discussing this matter honestly, and Republicans may have already paid a significant price for slow action on this front. Researcher Dr. Robert Epstein says evidence show that Google’s actions may have altered and interfered with the results of the 2018 midterm elections, where Democrats retook the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in nearly a decade–and won key Senate seats in places like Arizona and Nevada, taking away GOP seats. The Republicans did end up holding–and bolstering–their Senate majority thanks to wins in places like Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, and Florida, but Democrats far exceeded expectations on election day.

When asked during an interview on Breitbart News Sunday if he found “irregularities” in the 2018 midterm elections with regard to Google’s activities, Epstein replied “yes.”

“I can tell you now, on the record… Yes, I did,” Epstein said. “I did this secretly in 2016, capturing around 13,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, and this time I captured about 40,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, so yes I did.”

Some Republicans have started looking at finding a way to counter Google’s interference in U.S. elections. For instance, current House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy–who will be the House Minority Leader in the new Congress when Democrats take over there–has called for congressional hearings in the wake of the various exposes on things like the Google video and emails. McCarthy hammered big tech in an oped for Breitbart News back in June, too, and has done multiple interviews standing up to the powers-that-be in Silicon Valley.

It remains to be seen what happens next, but a lot depends on what happens at the White House on Thursday.

After the loony liberal group PETA tweeted a ridiculous guide to “anti-animal language,” the animal activists were given a reality check by a well-known seafood restaurant.

PETA, short for “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,” is not new to controversy. The so-called animal rights organization consistently makes headlines with its ridiculous stunts.

Previously, PETA tried to run an anti-Thanksgiving advertisement on NBC. The left-wing group also believes that milk is a white supremacist symbol.

Now the group is trying to police “anti-animal language” to combat “speciesism” in the name of “social justice.”

“Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it. Here’s how to remove speciesism from your daily conversations,” PETA tweeted with a guide offering alternatives to common phrases.

TRENDING: Pork Sausage Served at National Islam Conference

Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it. Here’s how to remove speciesism from your daily conversations. pic.twitter.com/o67EbBA7H4

— PETA: Bringing Home the Bagels Since 1980 (@peta) December 4, 2018

Instead of saying “beat a dead horse,” PETA suggests saying “feed a fed horse.”

Wouldn’t beating a horse that is already dead do less harm than overfeeding a live animal?

It turns out that PETA isn’t exactly the best advocate for animals, as Jimmy’s Famous Seafood, a restaurant in Baltimore, pointed out.

The restaurant, with over 100,000 followers on Twitter, mocked the left-wing group with its own tone-policing formula.

“Instead of saying PETA has killed over 36,000 animals. Say: PETA has not euthanized 40,000 animals yet,” the restaurant tweeted.

The “36,000 killed” referred to a report from an anti-PETA group published in 2017. But even liberal publications like the Huffington Post acknowledge PETA’s killing of animals is an “open secret” among activists.

Ooh this is fun! Can we play?

🔴 Instead of saying: PETA has killed over 36,000 animals.✳️ Say: PETA has not euthanized 40,000 animals yet.

🔴 Instead of saying: PETA steals pets from homes.✳️ Say: “my bad.”

Did we do that right? https://t.co/KY3kN9gYoK

— Jimmy’s Famous Seafood (@JimmysSeafood) December 4, 2018

RELATED: Leftists Now Want to End the Phrase ‘Bringing Home the Bacon’

How about we bring home PETA and beat them?

— Jimmy’s Famous Seafood (@JimmysSeafood) December 4, 2018

Jimmy’s Seafood wasn’t the only one mocking PETA. Judging from the social media reactions, most people seemed agree that PETA’s language policing was out of line.

Animals aren’t offended by human language. I’m vegan and this is pointless.

— ScarsUnseen (@ScarsUnseen24) December 6, 2018

Even a couple of The Western Journal’s editors had gotten into the act by Tuesday evening:

I see what you did there. But I’m not going to let the cat out of the bag. https://t.co/iFeqSy8fcQ

— The Upper Cut (@georgeupper) December 5, 2018

Jimmy’s Famous Seafood has the right idea. Americans shouldn’t be afraid to mock the left when they try to control language or peddle false social justice.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Apple CEO Tim Cook defended censorship by claiming it would be a “sin” not to remove content on Apple’s platform, but Apple allows songs like “F*** White People” to stay on iTunes.

Speaking at Anti-Defamation League’s “Never is Now Summit” on Monday, Cook made a bizarre attack on free speech.

“We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence,” Cook said. “You have no place on our platform. You have no home here.”

Of course, content that allegedly pushes “division” only applies to conservative content. Cook would be hard-pressed to remove far-left content because conservatives are the ones pushing “division” in the eyes of the left.

In reality, without “division,” the left would simply dominate everyone without opposition, which is clearly big tech’s goal.

TRENDING: Pork Sausage Served at National Islam Conference

If Apple was serious about broadly censoring “hate, division, and violence” without an ideological motive, they wouldn’t allow songs like “F*** White People” and “Suck My D*** H**” to stay on iTunes.

Apple’s platform also has countless mainstream rap songs threatening violence against President Donald Trump.

Later in his speech, Cook was a little more transparent about his agenda.

Apple CEO Tim Cook suggests it’s “a sin” to not ban certain people from social media and technology platforms: “We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence: You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here.” pic.twitter.com/gO5qB6bBuO

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) December 4, 2018

“And as we showed this year, we won’t give a platform to violent conspiracy theorists on the App Store. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do,” Cook said.

Cook must be referring to Apple’s ban against controversial radio show host Alex Jones.

However, Cook is completely permissive of far-left conspiracy theorists. Nobody will get banned from iTunes for peddling their crazed “Russian collusion” conspiracy theory.

It seems the term “conspiracy theorist” can be conveniently applied to anybody who makes a speculative argument that Apple disagrees with.

RELATED: Feds Access iPhone with Suspect’s Face Recognition

“I believe the most sacred thing that each of us is given is our judgement. Our morality. Our own innate desire to separate right from wrong,” Cook said. “Choosing to set that responsibility aside at a moment of trial is a sin.”

If Cook actually valued “judgement,” he would let Apple users judge content for themselves. Content shouldn’t be censored because Cook and other executives at Apple find it to be “wrong.”

It’s not a “sin” to believe people should be free to have opinions you disagree with.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Wednesday about his new legislation, the Wall Bill, which President Donald Trump tacitly endorsed. The bill would fully fund a wall on America’s southern border by cutting off illegal immigrants’ access to American welfare and tax credits.

Inhofe told Breitbart News the bill would fully fund the border wall by cutting off illegal aliens’ access to welfare benefits and tax credits. He said the bill would fulfill President Trump’s promises to both fund and build his southern border wall and have Mexico, or Mexican illegal immigrants, pay for it.

“Here’s the fun part: you’re taking the money out of people that are not entitled to something from this country, but there has been a lot of criticism of the president that it [the wall] is going to be paid for by Mexico. Well, this is. This is paid for by Mexicans or by foreigners who are in here fleecing our government,” Inhofe told Breitbart News. “So you can say to simplify it: it’s paid for by Mexicans because most of them who are coming in are coming even if they are not Mexicans, are coming through the Mexican border”:

The WALL Act will fully fund @realDonaldTrump“s border wall
by closing loopholes that allow illegal immigrants to receive federal benefits.

Read more: https://t.co/CyqI5ZljvF pic.twitter.com/LSm9zKwyWa

— Jim Inhofe (@JimInhofe) November 2, 2018

The bill would stipulate that only Americans or legal immigrants with work-authorized Social Security numbers can claim child tax credits, earned income tax credits, and other tax credits. Current law states that only a child needs a Social Security number, not the parent receiving the child tax credit, creating a perverse incentive where illegal alien parents can earn tax credits that only Americans are supposed to utilize. Inhofe’s legislation would require that parents have a work-authorized Social Security number to receive the tax credits, meaning that only legal immigrants and American can receive the benefits.

Inhofe’s legislation would disincentive illegal immigration by cutting off illegal aliens’ access to American welfare and tax benefits.

The Oklahoma senator told Breitbart News about how he came up with the idea to cut off illegal immigrants’ access to welfare to pay for the border wall.

Sen. Inhofe explained, “We were collectively working on it, and, as everyone knows–and I agree–we need the wall, and you have to pay for the wall. We have an unfriendly Democratic party on the wall issue, and so our thinking was that we have to come up with some way that makes perfectly good sense to the American people that would be opposed by the Democrats but would also be very hard to oppose it.”

Inhofe continued, “Second, essentially, what we do is take those benefits that are going to illegals, and in other words, people that are not citizens and those are the ones that are cheating our taxpayers, taking the money, and instead of giving it to them, we are keeping it for ourselves to build the wall. Now, it works out that this is as an example, a Child Tax Credit or other similar tax credits, actually go to the child and don’t go to the parent; the parent is the one that ends up getting the money.”

Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Breitbart News he knows the problems that plague our southern border so well because he has been involved in developing property in southern Texas for two decades, adding that former President Barack Obama’s actions have only increased illegal immigration. Sen. Inhofe said Obama wanted more immigration to increase the demographic power of the Democrat party.

“The reason I’m so familiar with this is that I spent 20 years of my life as a builder and developer in far south Texas on the Mexican border. I know how they work down there.” He went on to say that Obama’s motivation was that “the people that they allowed to come in from other countries are all going to vote Democrat. Now, you can debate that because all of them are Catholic, pro-life, but, nonetheless, that’s his view.”

The legislation would also require that states use E-Verify to confirm that only legal citizens can receive welfare benefits from programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs. The legislation would also increase the minimum fines on illegal border crossers and establishes a minimum penalty for visa overstays.

The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released an analysis on the bill, which found that the Oklahoma senator’s legislation would save $33.5 billion over the next ten years. This would more than pay for President Trump’s wall, which will cost roughly $25 billion. According to the JCT, the bill would pay for Trump’s requested $5 billion in border wall funding for the December spending bill by 2021.

During the interview with Breitbart News, Sen. Inhofe explained that President Trump supports the legislation. Sen. Inhofe said he told the president about the bill during a meeting on Tuesday, explaining to Trump about his innovative solution to paying for the wall. Inhofe said Trump thought highly of the legislation and subsequently asked his staff to look into the idea further.

The legislation already has the support of three conservative members of the Senate, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Rounds (R-SC), and John Kennedy (R-LA).

“I have long called for building a wall as a necessary step in defending our border and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into our country,” Cruz said in a statement on Thursday. “The overwhelming majority of Texans and Americans want to see the border secured. The WALL Act would fully fund the border wall by closing existing loopholes that provide illegal immigrants with federal benefits and tax credits, without affecting the benefits and tax credits used by Americans.”

“We can certainly afford the construction,” said Sen. Kennedy. “Sen. Inhofe and I are teaming up on legislation that will save taxpayers $33 billion simply by ensuring that the taxpayers’ generosity isn’t wasted. If you want to receive food stamps and other benefits, then you should prove your citizenship. If you cross the border illegally or overstay your visit to this country, then you should pay a stiff penalty.”

Sen. Rounds explained:

The primary responsibility of the federal government is the defense of our nation, which includes strong border security. The WALL Act will provide full funding for construction of a physical barrier along our southern border to protect against illegal immigration and stop those who wish to do us harm, such as terrorists, gang members, and drug dealers, from entering the United States from the south. It pays for the wall by closing existing loopholes that allow illegal immigrants to receive federal benefits and increasing fines for illegal border crossings and visa overstays. By funding the wall through increased fines, we prevent any risk of dipping into the Department of Defense (DoD) funding, which is already stretched thin. I thank Chairman Inhofe for his leadership on this effort, and I look forward to advancing this proposal in the Senate.

Inhofe also drafted the legislation to complement the Asylum Abuse Reduction Act that the senator introduced in August, which would close asylum loopholes and improve the integrity of the asylum application process.

Under current law, migrants who cross the border and declare asylum are released pending credible fear screenings and other legal procedures; however, they rarely show up for proceedings, often never completing the asylum process. Asylum applications have risen dramatically over the last decade, creating a huge backlog on the immigration court system. The Asylum Act would require individuals to seek asylum and begin their credible fear screening at an embassy or consulate outside of the United States before consideration for admittance under American asylum laws. The bill would also create a criminal bench warrant for illegal immigrants who fail to appear for immigration court, contrary to current law.

In an op-ed for Fox News, Inhofe noted that “five years ago, only 1 out of 100 migrants claimed asylum. Today, it’s 1 in 10.”

Sen. Inhofe explained that the American people will get excited when they “find out that the wall can be built and it won’t cost them a cent and it is going to be paid for by Mexicans in the country illegally. Doesn’t get any better than that.”

“The president said that this would be paid for by Mexico. And it just occurred to me, it is. It’s not only paid for by Mexico. It’s not just by Mexico, but by Mexicans that are cheating us right now,” Inhofe concluded.