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.

Contrary to the misconceptions perpetuated by the news media, the latest Twitter purge is not confined to accounts belonging to the alt right. Nor is it targeted exclusively at those accounts which violate Twitter’s terms of service. As  acclaimed actor James Woods explained in his farewell to the social networking behemoth, this is actually a debate about freedom of expression and the narrowing limits of allowable opinion under our not-so-liberal hegemons. As we’ve been pointing out for months, Jack Dorsey and his underlings view their website as an outlet for repeating the metanarrative of the left and suppressing any dissenting views. Whether it’s critiques of feminist dogma, attacks upon progressive mascots, or questions about the ongoing threats to Western civilization, his team will do everything in its power to squelch heterodox thought.

Now that Twitter’s champion has been consigned to the dustbin of political history, the retaliation will be swift and severe. Not content to choke off the advertising of Clinton opponents, the website will avail itself of every opportunity to silence the voices of anyone whose beliefs contradict those of Dorsey & Co., even if they scrupulously adhere to Twitter’s official guidelines. The idea that this latest purge will be the last, or that it’s only aimed at white nationalist and white supremacist trolls-an argument posited by a conservative I engaged on Twitter in the aftermath of these bans-is simply not born out by the facts. Indeed, one of the most recent suspensions-since lifted-was meted out to Hboulware, a ferociously anti-alt right Never Trumper. Her crime? Criticizing a leftist…on Twitter.

These purges will progress over time. I suspect the next major targets will be sites like InfoWars and Breitbart-the groundwork having been laid by a fake media campaign-followed shortly thereafter by bans on people like James O’Keefe and the pro-life activist Lila Rose, who’ve humiliated both the institutional left and their enablers in the press corps. You can expect Twitter to then gun for counter-jihad accounts belonging to free speech and anti-sharia activists like Pamela Geller, Bosch Fawstin, and Robert Spencer. It wouldn’t shock me at all if there were calls to ban the President-elect from Twitter. I’m sure his name is already on the SPLC’s new list for future memory holing of unsafe content.

The ultimate goal of these targeted bans/suspensions is to turn Twitter into a fiscally insolvent social justice hug box. One where no opinions to the left of Norman Ornstein ever sully the pristine minds of emotionally and intellectually stunted Tumblristas. The autistic invocation of the 1st Amendment by leftists whenever one of these purges is conducted is particularly galling when you consider their innate hostility to freedom of association and private property. The same people who believe that you don’t have dominion over your apartment, your business, or your private club-and assert that these are public accommodations in court-are now lecturing us on the parameters of free speech in the United States.

Whether or not Twitter is eventually superseded by a digital platform dedicated to free and open expression remains to be seen. However, we should take away an important lesson from this latest installment of the social media wars. Namely, that there is nothing liberal about the regressive left.

The resignation of John Kitzhaber should come as no surprise to those of us who’ve been monitoring the career of both he and his inamorata, whose recent past includes the disclosure of immigration fraud. A revelation that dovetailed perfectly with this particular couple’s militant open borders activism, including an ACLU-endorsed campaign to invest illegal aliens with drivers’ licenses. Although the proximate cause of Kitzhaber’s ignominious retirement from public life is the dubious green energy scheme-a hallmark of Obamanomics-which lined the pockets of Oregon’s former first lady, the fact that both of these individuals are trusted members of the treason lobby should not escape notice. 

Granted, the corruption of elected and unelected officials seems to be endemic to American public life, as the police lineup of this state’s criminals, i.e. politicians, attests to. However, it’s worth exploring the connection between officeholders who routinely disparage the law, at least, as it’s applied to their favorite constituency, and the cavalier way these same officials treat the laws they are sworn to uphold in their personal and professional lives. After all, Mr. Kitzhaber is not the first, nor likely the last, open borders apparatchik who will leave office in disgrace.

As most of you know by now, Speaker John Boehner’s recent hire has occasioned well-warranted criticism from opponents of the open borders agenda. You need do little more than skim the press release from her former employer to understand why the Speaker is taking on her services. However, the fact that the amnesty train is rolling towards its final destination does not mean that all hope is lost.

Investor’s Business Daily speaks for all patriotic Americans-including, presumably, followers of this website-when it declares that this seemingly bad omen should not be used as a justification for caving in regarding amnesty. We need to do everything in the time that elapses between now and the beginning of the next session of Congress to make our voices heard. To that end, we at American Rattlesnake urge you once again to Make Them Listen to those voices and force them to reject a fundamentally anti-American, anti-worker piece of corporatist/leftist statecraft.

Yet another horrific shipwreck has occurred off the coast of the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa, which has become ground zero in the ongoing invasion of Europe by refugees from North Africa and the Middle East. You can view the harrowing rescue of some survivors here. The human tragedy-experienced both by the foreigners surging over the periphery of Europe and the inhabitants of the European islands which are involuntarily hosting them-is magnified by shortsighted foreign policies pursued by Western nations, including the United States, which have devastated countries like Libya and Syria, the source of many of the migrants seeking, and being granted, sanctuary.  

You don’t have to be an open borders dogmatist, or want to turn the developed world into a gigantic hostel for third world immigrants, to be anguished by the tableaux from southern Europe we’ve been witness to over the past few days. Horror, as well as disgust, are natural reactions to such abhorrent circumstances. Whether this most recent tragedy leads countries like the U.S. and United Kingdom to reexamine their invade the world, invite the world policies, or a nasty African dictatorship to reconsider its views on military conscription, i.e. slavery, remains to be seen. Regardless of what broader impact these latest deaths have, they should at the very least serve to illustrate the magnitude of the problem faced by Europe, and by extension, America.

The Camp of the Saints is no longer a dystopian fantasy, but an uncomfortable reality.

One simple word which encapsulates the sum of the aspirations harbored by Iranians throughout the world, both those in exile and those living, and suffering, in the land of their birth. It was one of the demands invoked repeatedly throughout the pro-democracy demonstrations which took place last week at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza. These protests were held against the backdrop of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last speech before the United Nations General Assembly, evoking memories of the election he purloined in order to remain in power.

Although various factions within the Iranian freedom movement were present, the bulk of those in attendance came from the MEK, an organization led by the woman seen in the placard above, Maryam Rajavi.

The president of the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran-and wife of Massoud Rajavi, the leader of that group’s political arm, The National Council of Resistance in Iran-she controls what is arguably the most controversial, and undoubtedly the most personality-driven, group within the anti-IRI opposition movement which has taken root among the Iranian diaspora created by the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The cloud surrounding the MEK exists for a number of reasons, one of the most prominent among them being its inclusion in a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations created by the State Department, which includes such illustrious fraternal associations as Abu Sayyaf and Lashkar-e-Taiba. 

At first glance, it would appear that this designation is appropriate. After all, as this ABC News report about the recent removal of the MEK from proscribed terrorist organizations makes clear, it was responsible for the deaths of Americans-both civilian and military-abroad, much like northern California jihadi John Walker Lindh. It was given sanctuary for decades by Iraq-itself considered a state sponsor of terror until the removal of Saddam Hussein from power-much like the Palestinian Liberation Front, a terrorist group responsible for murdering American citizens in the most callous manner.

So if the terrorist designation is applied to any group which has the blood of Americans on its hands, then the State Department should not have even contemplated de-listing the MEK. However, if that is the policy, then what explanation is there for the federal government’s consistent policy of embracing, if not feting, PLO leaders? Men who  are directly implicated in the murder of American diplomats, and who represent an entity responsible  for the deaths of more Americans  any other terrorist organization in the contemporary era-and whose hands are stained with blood much fresher than that taken by the MKO-with the exceptions of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. The PLO might even outrank the latter in body count, if we consider that its chief operations planner was once a protege of Yasser Arafat.

If the criteria for inclusion is militarization and/or criminal activity, then it’s hard to explain why the Irish Republican Army has never been designated an FTO. After all, the IRA Army Council didn’t formally renounce its armed campaign until 2005, which marked the year it finally decommissioned its supply of arms. What’s more, members of the IRA have engaged not only in murder and obstruction of justice within the past decade-as well as other notorious criminal activities-but shared their bomb-making expertise with the most prolific terrorist group in the Western Hemisphere.

So what explains the MEK’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department? Although obviously a self-interested stance, I can’t help but agree with the MEK itself, which concludes that this decision was made in an attempt at currying favor with the Iranian regime. A regime whose presidency was held by the pseudo-reformist Mohammed Khatami, assiduously courted by the Clinton administration, at the time this list was formulated. As others have pointed out, this policy of engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran has not returned much in the way of political or diplomatic dividends.

Even so, the MEK’s fiercest adversaries do pose some valid objections. The organization does have a very sordid past, a past which Kenneth Timmerman has extensively and eloquently limned over the years. And despite some exaggeration of the dangers it poses, there is an inexorably cultish quality to the organization created by Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, although it should be noted that there are numerous cults in this country which do not engage in terrorism. At least, as it is generally defined.

Another valid critique of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq  is the assertion that it is not a genuinely grassroots opposition movement. Anyone who has observed an MEK rally firsthand can’t escape the impression that the astroturf accusations are not completely devoid of merit. The man above didn’t seem to have much interest in the internal political dynamics of Iran, much less the MEK, although the fact that he was at a rally with fans of the Redskins and Giants did speak to a rare intra-divisional amity this NFL season.

Even protestors with more substantive concerns-such as these Cameroonian men-did not seem particularly interested in the issues that animated others at this rally.

Notwithstanding the occasional references to “Iranian freedom,” most of their chants focused exclusively upon the injustice of Paul Biya’s lengthy dictatorship over the people of Cameroon, and the persecution their countrymen endure for opposing it.

Finally, the allegation that the MEK bought its way off of the State Department’s list of proscribed terrorist groups must be addressed. The fact that the former head of the Department of Homeland Security is willing to speak to crowd of MKO supporters, and urge other nations to facilitate the resettlement of MEK members now living in Camp Liberty, speaks to the efficacy of their lobbying efforts.

As does the bipartisan nature of the support they receive. Which runs the gamut from avid motorist Patrick Kennedy,

to former New Mexico governor-and Clinton fixer-Bill Richardson,

to the far more reputable, and decidedly conservative, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Whatever motivates these public figures to support their cause-to a greater or lesser degree-it can’t be disputed that the  mobilization of the MEK within the halls of American power has played a significant role in their political rehabilitation.

That said, it strikes me as slightly hypocritical to bemoan the (legal) lobbying by an anti-IRI organization while ignoring the corresponding public relations campaign undertaken by friends of the mullahcracy. Even if you truly believe that the MEK is a monstrous organization, how much more bestial and inhumane is the regime it stands against?

Which isn’t to imply that the MEK is worthy of political support-either through taxpayer subsidies or individual donations-or a model which Iranian dissidents should emulate. Personally, I find the idea of it serving as “the government” of any future, post-Islamic Iranian republic fairly ludicrous. And of course, there already exist opposition activists with much compelling, forward-thinking platforms.

Nevertheless, the widespread efforts to demonize the MEK-for all its failures-seems to be profoundly misplaced. Even if we were to concede that this organization comprised the most detestable collection of rogues known to man, its continued existence is itself a byproduct of the brutal theocracy which has ruled Iran for the past three decades.

Their goals might be more ignoble than those of the Green Movement, and more incoherent than those of the constitutional monarchists and the left, but they exist within the context of opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. A regime which rules largely-ironically enough-because of their past actions. However, the past is the past. To use the actions a group took decades ago, however heinous, as a justification for arbitrary political decisions, even those that might be enjoy widespread popularity, would be mistaken.

The conviction of and two year prison sentence leveled against anti-clerical, anti-authoritarian riot grrl punk-rock band Pussy Riot should not have come as a surprise to those who have been following the periodic show trials initiated by the Putin regime in order to quell swelling domestic discontent and internal protests. In spite of the inevitability of this verdict, dozens of sympathizers and rock enthusiasts-such as the person seen above-decided to show up in Times Square for yesterday’s Global Day Of Action, which was intended to demonstrate solidarity with the three women prosecuted for standing up to Vladimir Putin and his friends in the etiolated, yet politically connected, Russian Orthodox Church.

Although most were there to show their support for Russia’s most famous political dissidents at the moment, the fact that the rally took place in the center of one of the globe’s chief tourist destinations-and a hub for national and global media-meant that there were many others who came to either enjoy or participate in the spectacle that is New York City in the middle of the dog days of Summer. As you can see from the picture below, one of the hangers-on was this city’s most epic troll, a man with whom readers are very familiar.

In addition to denouncing American opposition to Bashar al-Assad and praising Vladimir Putin, he also accused those gathered in Times Square of taking part in a CIA-sponsored disinformation campaign. Surprisingly, he wasn’t the only communist in attendance, as the pamphlets promoting Revolutionary Communist/cult leader Bob Avakian demonstrated. Unaffiliated with either man, yet also participating in this impromptu speaker’s corner, was a pro-abortion, anti-pornography activist festooned in neon stickers.

And since it was the anniversary of Elvis Presley’s death, we were treated to an Elvis Presley impersonator. As Cindy Adams is wont to say, only in New York…

Notwithstanding the ubiquitous tourists and perennial trolls, most of those in attendance were there to protest the persecution of Russian artists and political dissidents. As in demonstrations throughout the world, the balaclavas which have become the hallmark of this newly famous punk rock band were sported by many protesters.

As was the less common business attire.

Even children got into the act.

Of course, some people shunned anonymity.

One demonstrator played upon the musicians’ trademark apparel by alluding to the opaque nature of the Putin regime.

One of the chief criticisms voiced at the rally was aimed at the symbiotic-bordering on incestuous-relationship between the ruling party in Russia-particularly President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev-and the Russian Orthodox Church, led by autocratic patriarch Kirill I. This is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the pro-Pussy Riot actions-at least, from the perspective of a believing Christian who disdains organized religion as it stands today-because it illustrates the corruption of contemporary religious institutions such as the ROC, which, at least since its rapprochement with Joseph Stalin, has served as an unofficial auxiliary of the Russian state.

It was a bit harder to discern a coherent political narrative behind yesterday’s event, beyond generic support for freedom of expression.

And the ineluctable observation that Putin sucks:

The politics expressed during the rally ran the gamut from anarcho-syndicalism-as seen below:

To support for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, which might or might not have something to do with his persistent critiques of the Russian government on the campaign trail.

There were also, if the t-shirt seen below is any indication, many feminists among the crowd.

Malleus Maleficarum is, for those unaware, a document created by German priests-who served as inquisitors for the Roman Catholic Church in the 15th century-which attempted to demonstrate that witchcraft does in fact exist and described, in precise detail, how it should be combated. The witches, in this case, are Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich, and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. Presumably, the resources invested in flattening a seemingly inconsequential protest against Putin’s authority signify the willingness of his regime to drown witches who pose a more direct threat to his rule.

The rally concluded with a throng of demonstrators crossing into Father Duffy Square and climbing atop the TKTS bleacher in order to convey their message to a slightly larger audience.

And deliver an acoustic set in Russian.

Although I enjoyed the brief, yet impassioned, speech given by the Russian émigré extolling the benefits of living in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution, the herp derp call and response fashion in which it was delivered, via Occupy Wall Street’s patented mic check, was not the smoothest way to convey what would otherwise be an emotionally powerful message.

That said, I thought the pro-Pussy Riot Times Square rally was newsworthy, and-to the extent that those heretofore ignorant of the current persecution of dissident artists and journalists within Russia were aware of it-effective in spreading information about an important instance of individuals defying the state. As the makeshift banner above states, we are all hooligans, especially when speech is criminalized.

You can read the closing statements of the defendants here.

There are a number of lessons to be gleaned from the rapidly imploding criminal case against the former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Beyond the usual, insincere breast-beating and lamentation over the media’s predictable rush to judgement, as well as questions of whether the traditional perp walk is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights, there is a much broader discussion that has yet to be broached. And that discussion entails the morass of fraud that lies at the heart of our country’s immigration system, especially the application process for potential asylum-seekers. 

The New York Post had an extensive analysis of why the credibility of DSK’s accuser has been called into question in yesterday’s edition. Although there are numerous accusations being leveled against the Guinean maid, including charges of tax evasion and lying about the aftermath of the alleged sexual assault by Khan, the allegations that I’d like to explore involve the deception she employed in order to get into this country in the first place.

One of ugly truths that the rah-rah, open borders at any cost crowd refuses to admit-but which is acknowledged by almost anyone else with a shred of integrity-is that political asylees and foreigners applying for refugee status in Western countries, including the United States, lie. They lie in order to gain access to the bounty that is Western Europe, or Australia, or North America-Mexico excluded-and they lie in order to protect their status within these very special places once they have arrived there. So the fact that this woman created an elaborate patchwork of lies, starting with a fictitious gang-rape that allegedly took place within her home country of Guinea, in order to gain political asylum  is not surprising in the least. In fact, those of you with good memories might recall the case of Adelaide Abankwah, a phony Nigerian “princess” whose story of  a potential clitoridectomy gained her the favor of our own esteemed, open borders pinheads, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Senator Chuck Schumer. Interestingly enough, Mr. Strauss-Khan’s accuser also maintains that she was the victim of genital mutilation-and that her daughter in Guinea is under threat of FGM-a claim that might or might not withstand increased media scrutiny in the coming days. The similarities between these two examples of West African immigration scams might strike some as uncanny, until, that is, you remember that this sort of deception is par for the course.

Misrepresenting your circumstances in order to remain in a wealthy, industrialized nation is such a common occurrence that women’s rights activist and Islamic apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali devotes an entire chapter to her own asylum case in her engrossing memoir, Nomad. She readily admits that she lied during the application process in order to avoid an arranged marriage and remain in The Netherlands, and that most asylum-seekers also fudge the facts in their cases, for better or worse. The mendacity of asylum-seekers is so widespread-it can be said to be almost universal-that it was satirized in a Steven Spielberg-directed film called The Terminal, a tedious comedy starring Tom Hanks as a wholesome immigrant who is forced to live inside of an airport because of overly officious Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureaucrats.

And if you think immigration fraud is limited to the United States, then you obviously haven’t been an avid reader of UK tabloids and broadsheets, or a follower of the BBC, which recount cases of fraudulent asylum-seekers gaming the system on a daily basis. The only surprising part of this case, in my opinion, is the shockingly long time it took the mainstream media to investigate the claims lodged by the accuser in this case. Unfortunately, I doubt this will lead the same journalists to question the wisdom of our government’s endorsement of unfettered immigration. To the contrary, the revelation that many of her initial claims were falsehoods was accompanied-at least in the New York Times-by a series of soft focus stories lamenting the potential negative repercussions these new developments will have on Guinean immigrants living in New York City. Leave it to the drive-by media to miss the point yet again. That is why this website exists, my friends.