One of the most misunderstood creatures in this country is crotalus, a genus of venomous pit vipers most people simply call rattlesnakes. Crotalus horridus, also known as the timber rattlesnake or canebrake snake, epitomizes the deeply ambivalent relationship Americans have with this animal, which Benjamin Franklin considered a symbol of our nascent country-and which remains a symbol of freedom and defiance of unjust government-yet has been hunted to extinction or near-extinction throughout New England.

The fear and loathing with which most Americans view rattlesnakes is illustrated most vividly by events like the Sweetwater Rattlesnake Roundup, wherein thousands of rattlesnakes are captured, killed, and skinned-often in gruesome ways-as a means of promoting local tourism. This deep revulsion is exhibited towards an animal that in normal circumstances does not threaten or harm humans, who are rarely-if ever-killed when an encounter does occur. It should be noted that some of these fatalities include people who wantonly abuse snakes.

With this sort of deep misunderstanding and distrust, Ted Levin’s insightful book, America’s Snake: The Rise And Fall Of The Timber Rattlesnake, is such a welcome resource. It not only debunks some common misconceptions about this increasingly threatened species, it explores why timber rattlesnakes were able to inhabit Maine, Long Island, and even New York City, although you’ll no longer find any dens-or rattlesnakes-in these places. One of the proximate causes of the rattlesnake’s decline in the Northeast, and a key part of the puzzle Levin hopes to unlock in his book, is Ophidiomyces ophiodilcola, a fungus which can prove fatal if a snake is not rehabilitated.

Although Ophidiomyces is the immediate villain, as Levin’s story unfolds the reader realizes that the greatest threat to the survival of the timber rattlesnake in the northeast is the increasing encroachment of humans upon this species’ habitat. The disruption of the mating process through development-particularly roads which cut between snake dens-the rapacious poaching, especially of gravid females, and general indifference of society towards the welfare of this fascinating animal all imperil its continued survival in this region.

To get a better idea of what this book is about, and learn why you should be concerned about its future, I would recommend watching this video of a talk delivered by Ted Levin last year. It might give you a new perspective on a quintessentially American reptile.

Watching the debate between Heather Mac Donald and Edward Stringham was a fascinating experience for a number of reasons, foremost among them being that it presented two deeply contrasting visions of right wing thought. The former shaped by a deep reverence for social cohesion and ordered liberty, while the latter is influenced by a deeply-held anti-authoritarianism and faith in an unencumbered free market. The point of dispute was criminal justice reform, which was framed by the debate resolution, “There’s a war on cops, and it’s making us less safe.” Mac Donald, naturally, responded in the affirmative, asserting that the most horrific outbursts of violence directed against law enforcement, e.g. last year’s sniper attacks against Dallas police officers, as well as the 2014 ambush of NYPD officers, were a direct result of a deliberate campaign to demonize law enforcement by public officials and political activists. Stringham rejected that claim, asserting that civilians are at much more risk of being killed by police officers than vice versa.

Both perspectives were bolstered by statistics, although Mac Donald also emphasized the human cost of what she perceives to be a lack of faith in the police, including some horrific anecdotes from Chiraq. Stringham decried her “appeal to emotion,” and expressed his belief that his debate opponent doesn’t understand basic statistics, repeatedly hammering home the fact that we are experiencing historically low rates of violent crime and gun crime. He described how data fluctuates, which means you can’t ‘make inferences based on 2 data points,’ i.e. the national and local spikes in violent crime we witnessed in 2015. He asked Mac Donald why it took so long for homicides to increase in New York City, despite a 5 year-long decrease in the number of stops under its stop-and-frisk program-reaching a low of 22,929 in 2015-and why crime in almost every other measurable category continued to decline.

Mac Donald was asked whether her role was to serve as an advocate for the criminal justice system, to which she responded, “no, it’s to combat false narratives.” One of those misleading narratives-and it was this ground upon which I think she was on her firmest footing-is the Black Lives Matter campaign to convince ordinary people that black people are subjected to uniquely unfair treatment at the hands of systemically racist law enforcement. As she pointed out, whites are shot disproportionately during violent encounters with police-she didn’t mention Native Americans, who are killed at a per capita rate exceeding every other ethnic group in this country-when you consider the paltry rate at which they commit violent crime in comparison to other races. Even so, the public knows virtually none of their names, even those who are killed at point blank range, like the late David Kassick. By contrast, black civilians who are killed unjustly at the hands of police are the subject of critically acclaimed films, not to mention being the inspiration for conflagrations which engulf entire cities.

Although Stringham maintained that the racial component of this debate was irrelevant, while asserting that police should not be taxing citizens under the color of law-as many claim was the case in Ferguson, Missouri-his opponent insisted upon pointing out the inherent racial disparities of an purportedly underpoliced society, e.g. blacks dying at a rate 6 times that of whites, as well as the 4,300 people shot in the city of Chicago last year. For what it’s worth, I wish he had acknowledged this aspect of the debate, i.e. that many Americans, whether they’re residents of the Ingersoll or Marlboro Houses, or Camden, New Jersey, live in a very violent and insecure world, even as Americans are generally safer than they have been in generations. A belief that there is a divide along racial lines is perfectly consonant with an opposition to needlessly intrusive, aggressive policing. In fact, the solution to this problem might have been alluded to by an audience member, who asked whether more shall-issue laws might be responsible for a decrease in violent crime.

Stringham also pointed out the efficacy of private police forces, which-unlike law enforcement under our current system-are directly accountable to the public. Unlike cops in the public sector, who often view themselves as fee collectors/enforcers for the state-police within a consensual system actually have incentives to serve their customers, i.e. the public, and not to abuse their authority. Although Mac Donald expressed qualified skepticism about this arrangement, it’s worth noting that there were once entire societies which operated largely within the parameters of private law. Whether or not this is an applicable model in the case of the United States is an open question, although it’s a question which deserves to be asked. After all, if the exorbitant black crime rate is entwined with the familial and social breakdown in black communities, then who is to say that increasingly aggressive policing is the long term solution to this problem?

As if we needed a reminder that the Augean Stables of our federal government need to be cleansed from top to bottom, this week brought news of an FBI agent encouraging a would-be Muslim assassin in the days leading up to the jihadist assault on Garland, Texas. I’m not one prone to conspiracy theories, but combined with the acknowledgement that Pamela Geller, the primary target of this assassination attempt, has not been contacted by law enforcement authorities in the wake of this latest development, you have to wonder what exactly is going on in Quantico.

We have a Justice Department which refuses to indict a woman who’s probably committed grievous crimes simply because she is the wife of a former President and the current nominee of the Democratic Party. An individual whose negligence-or malfeasance, if we’re being less frank-not only compromised national security, but may have led to the execution of an Iranian nuclear scientist. We have an FBI which believes it did its job by closing the file on Omar Mateen after concluding that his contacts with a suicide bomber had been minimal.  We all remember what that brilliant casework led to, don’t we?

Of course, we also have an Attorney General who believes that the solution to domestic jihadist networks and terrorists-which we have in every single state, for those of you who are keeping track-is to prosecute those who have the audacity to hurt Muslim feelz. We have a Department of Homeland Security which views right wingers, i.e. anyone to the right of Andrea Mitchell, as a greater domestic threat than ISIS, even as our government welcomes scores of refugees who might turn out to be actual terrorists.  Now it turns out that there are FBI agents who believe it’s within their purview to incite those whose sole job is plotting the deaths of critics of Islam.

I have some unpleasant news for the people reading this. Barring a monumental change, this is not going to get any better. In fact, contra The Weekly Standard’s stable of pro-Hillary shills, it will likely get much, much worse. The rancid corruption you’ve seen from the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign is merely a foretaste of what’s to come if the American public doesn’t wake up very soon. The Democratic Party nominee embraces the imposition of blasphemy laws-protecting only one religion, naturally-upon free men and women in the United States. She blatantly and persistently lied about who was responsible for the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and endangered the life of the filmmaker who committed the crime of not genuflecting before the most intolerant religion on the planet.

If you thought the Obama administration was corrupt, hostile to free speech, and unable to come to grips with the threat posed to our civilization by Islamic ideology, then you’re not going to like what the next 4 years have in store for this nation. America needs to wake up and realize that there are bigger threats to our future than a candidate who makes uncharitable comments about sleazy Muslim immigration lawyers with whom the media is enamored. Otherwise, we have some unpleasant years ahead of us.

Although there have been numerous global jihadist assaults since my last post-including an unsuccessful attack carried out by a Somali Muslim immigrant in a Texas town forced to accept the resettlement of refugees and the beheading of a Canadian hostage taken by Abu Sayyaf-it’s worth reflecting upon the atrocity which took place at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Not simply because of the staggering toll-you can read the stories of those who were killed here-but because the post-Orlando political climate is a reflection of our bizarre national discourse at the moment.

While a courageous few are willing to speak truth to power-in the face of censorship by those who feel that the violence of Islam will evaporate once its critics are erased-our esteemed leaders continue to value their narrative of vibrant diversity over real human lives. The only way to combat this disease-which not only threatens our lives but our hard-won freedoms-is to confront it head-on. Share this video-as well that of Milo’s press conference, which begins 12 minutes in-and begin to challenge the insidious lies which ignore a mountain of corpses.

It’s remarkable how many lone wolves share the same religious and ideological worldview as 80% of the world’s terrorists. The latest jihadist attack is less than 2 days old and we can already detect the same dismal pattern of official obfuscation and denial at work. Don’t expect much media coverage of the assailant’s status as a Muslim refugee, one of scores resettled in states like Ohio and Minnesota over the past decade, or questions about the potential danger that admitting thousands more via judicial fiat and presidential caprice will engender.

Being an open borders apologist means never having to say you’re sorry, even when there are real victims.

I realize my thoughts on the upcoming presidential race have not been expressed too often on this site-despite the Iowa Caucuses being less than 2 weeks away-but I have written an essay about how I think the next few months will unfold. You can read it in its entirety on Splice Today. Feel free to contribute your thoughts on who will win-or why he or she should win-in the comments’ section below.

It turns out that we may have a decision on President Obama’s unlawful extension of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens before the next presidential election is decided. You can read the report by Ken Klukowski, which explains the now expedited process to decide whether or not SCOTUS will take up the issue of DAPA during its upcoming term, on Breitbart. The long and short of it is that the request by Texas to extend the deadline for its filing motion has been denied and that the fast track sought by the White House has been facilitated-in part.

Ironically, highlighting the outrageous abuse of power-as well as the anti-citizen bent-of this administration might be the last thing the Democratic nominee needs to secure votes next November.

Most of you have probably already heard the news, but for those of you who are unaware, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Judge Hanen’s injunction against President Obama’s clearly unconstitutional, unlawful fiat legalizing 5+ million illegal aliens. This is a decisive, albeit temporary, victory for those of us who believe in the rule of law and application of it to a group which has exploited the political and legal process to the hilt.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration intends to appeal this decision. It is also, according to reports, considering placing a woman who was responsible for San Francisco’s lethal sanctuary city policy in charge of the Border Patrol. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried, folks. Get the pitchforks ready!

These past few weeks have been good ones for immigration patriots throughout the nation. From Governor Pat McCrory’s decision to punish sanctuary cities in the state of North Carolina, to Governor Greg Abbott’s decision to withhold state funding from sheriffs who adopt similar policies in Texas, we have seen a dawning recognition among some officeholders of the dangers posed to the public by criminal aliens who wander our streets unimpeded. However, the most encouraging sign is perhaps the overwhelming defeat of  loathsome-if not criminal-sheriff Ross Mirkarimi in the city of San Francisco.

Coupled with an upcoming ballot initiative modeled upon Kate’s Law, which would do away with the sort of statutes that contributed to the death of innocent people like Kathryn Steinle, we might finally be witnessing a reversal of a decades-long push to turn the Golden State into a domicile for illegal aliens and their enablers. We can only hope that this is a signal of a shift in legislative policy, and work towards the day when we don’t have to mourn the senseless deaths of ordinary men and women victimized by their government’s indifference to American lives.

Listen to an interview of Dan Golvach, the father of a man whose life was taken in cold blood by an illegal alien who was able to slip across the Mexican-American border unmolested. The indifference of government bureaucrats to Mr. Golvach’s plight is just one more example of the solicitude shown towards these foreign predators.

Listen to Mr. Golvach’s words, and realize that his suffering-just like that of Jamiel Shaw Sr. and his family-is shared by thousands of families throughout this nation who have been victimized by a government unwilling to fulfill its promise to protect the rights of American citizens.