In the final frenzied stretch before Election Day, a bizarre story broke: two family pets were seized at gunpoint by New York State authorities from their Pine City owners. The incident quickly morphed into a national outcry over government overreach, dominating national headlines in an extended news cycle.
The Swat-style raid by the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on the home of Mark and Christy Longo, owners of a legal animal shelter, and the seizure of their pet squirrel and raccoon, was slammed as an abuse of government power against an ordinary, law-abiding citizen.
The trick-performing squirrel, an internet sensation on social media referred to as “Peanut,” was put to death, along with “Fred” the raccoon, so that the animals could be tested for the presence of rabies, according to a statement from the DEC, reported the NY Post.
Critics used the event to showcase the Democratic party as disconnected from rational and humane governance.
The raid was reportedly in response to anonymous complaints about “wildlife” animals living in the Longo house, which is illegal in New York without a government permit. Mark Longo, a mechanical engineer, was reportedly in the midst of processing paperwork to secure a permit for the squirrel as an “educational” animal, when authorities put an end to his plans.
In media interviews, he said he was “stunned” when a convoy of vehicles carrying 10-12 officials from the DEC descended on his home in a surprise raid last Wednesday. The agents had coordinated the action with law enforcement to address what they called a “public health matter.”
According to media reports, based on Mark Longo’s description of the event, the agents carrying out the raid forced Mark and his wife Christy outside at gunpoint. For five hours, they turned the Longos’ home inside out even after the pets had been seized.
Critics have noted that squirrels are not considered one of the common vectors (carriers) of rabies, pointing out that putting the pet squirrel to death was arguably unjustified.
New York is overwhelmingly a liberal Democratic state and the judge who signed the break-and-search warrant is Democrat as well. One the eve of the presidential election, this is all it took to turn the event into a public relations disaster for Democrats.
In some quarters, the seizure of the two pets seemed to match and even exceed public wrath over some of the most serious issues of the day, including criminals getting away with violent crime, shoplifters going unpunished, parents’ rights being trampled and pro-terrorist groups rioting and vandalizing with impunity.
Officials Chose Maximum Force
“What’s the big deal about a squirrel?” many wondered.
Perhaps one of the factors that galvanized fury over Peanut’s fate was the irony of law enforcement in one of the most liberal states, one with a strong emphasis on animal rights, using maximum force to seize and ultimately kill the pet squirrel and raccoon at the center of the story.
Longo and his wife had last year established an animal sanctuary called “Peanut’s Freedom Farm,” inspired by the squirrel. They had taken the rodent in after Longo witnessed the squirrel’s mother being hit by a car. The squirrel refused to return to the wild and became attached to the couple.
Peanut had also become an important source of income for the Longos as his antics and tricks had garnered him an internet following of over a million people. The Longos were trying to navigate the bureaucracy to get the required permit that would grant Peanut status as an educational animal.
The law enforcement action stood out to many as a singular example of government overreach and callousness to both humans and animals. To conservatives, particularly, the story is emblematic of liberal government’s skewed priorities.
The government raid might have been legal, but many questioned why the authorities would raid a citizen’s home at gunpoint to confiscate a pet squirrel before exhausting all other options that don’t require the use of force.
Critics note that officials had several options before them other than a display of maximum force. They could have simply imposed a fine on Mark Longo, who has no criminal record and could be reasonably expected to cooperate. They could have instructed him to bring the animals in to a government facility. They could have helped accelerate Peanut’s educational permit.
For whatever reason, authorities did not choose any of these avenues, opting to ignore the grounds for compassion, prosecutorial discretion, and the use of minimum force.
Treated ‘Like a Terrorist or Drug Dealer’
Mark Longo’s description of the raid in an interview with NY Post is chilling.
“10 to 12 DEC officers raided my house as if I was a terrorist or a drug dealer. I sat outside my house for five hours. I had to get a police escort to my bathroom,” an emotional Longo said. “I wasn’t even allowed to feed my horses breakfast or lunch, or even give them water. I was made to sit there like a criminal after they interrogated my wife to check out her immigration status.”
Longo said authorities went through “every cabinet, nook and cranny” of his house during the search, even taking apart his toilet. “Four departments and a judge signed off on a search warrant for a squirrel and a raccoon. And then they took them and killed them,” Longo said.
The animal farm owner explained he knew it was illegal to house a squirrel and raccoon—as opposed to legally maintaining then with his other rescued animals outdoors at his farm—but he didn’t “have the heart” to keep them outside as they had no survival instincts after being rescued at infancy.
The DEC claimed the pet squirrel bit one of its officials on the hand during the raid which is why they need to put the animal to death in order to test its brains for rabies, but Longo told the NY Post that the officials’ hands were heavily protected.
“I watched everybody put gloves on before they entered my house. They had gloves that you could get an eagle to land on,” he said. Longo is demanding an investigation into the claim officials were checking the animals for rabies, and filing a motion to get the medical records of those who seized the animals to see if they actually got tested for the disease.
Longo, who only found out his animals were put down through his local news station, said the state must answer for its actions.
“Why was there so much force brought to my house for a raccoon and a squirrel?” he asked. “We have so many other things that we need to focus on. Why use our government to do this stuff when we haven’t even fixed the real serious problems we have in daily human life?”
For some Republicans, the squirrel saga stands as a dire warning of what a Harris Administration would look like. They note the striking contrast in government action in this story to its policies toward illegal immigration.
“It’s time to vote out a government that will kill a pet squirrel but will gladly and knowingly allow 600,000 illegals with thousands of criminal elements into the country…Maybe Peanuts’ execution will be the catalyst for real change in this country….” wrote Donald Trump Jr. in an online post.
Republican Lawmakers Slam Government Action
“With all the crime in our migrant shelters, good to know we have the time and resources for a squirrel swat team,” scoffed City Councilman Joe Borelli, R-Staten Island.
Campaigning in Sanford, North Carolina on Sunday, Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance said Donald Trump was “fired up” about Squirrel’s death. “The same government that doesn’t care about hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals coming into our country, doesn’t want us to have pets,” the Ohio senator told supporters in North Carolina. “It’s the craziest thing.”
“Vance is far from the only prominent conservative to view the popular Peanut as a martyr of government overreach,” wrote the BBC. New York congressman Nick Langworthy expressed his frustration with the “surprise raid,” noting that the state’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul had “misguided priorities.”
“In New York State, we have sanctuaries for illegal immigrants while innocent pets are killed,” he wrote on social media.
U.S. Rep. Marc Molinaro, R-NY, weighed in as well. “As a pet owner I feel for the Longos and I’m calling for Governor [Kathy] Hochul to issue an official apology for their ridiculous overreach,” he posted online.
State lawmaker Jake Blumencrantz who calls himself “an animal rights advocate” called Peanut’s death a potential “agent” of change, saying it galvanized him to propose a bill called “Peanut’s Law: Humane Animal Protection Act.” The measure would mandate a 72-hour waiting period before an animal from a sanctuary can be seized and put to sleep, and creates an appeal system.
State Sen. Thomas O’Mara, who is Longo’s state representative, said he has reached out to the DEC and Chemung County Department of Health and has been stonewalled on getting an answer about who authorized the decision to euthanize Peanut.
“Everything else our government looks the other way on as far as illegal immigrants, but then come down on someone harboring a squirrel,” said O’Mara. “It just highlights the priorities of the government we have in New York State, frankly. It’s disturbing and we need answers from both the state DEC and the Chemung County Department of Health.”
Ken Girardin, research director at the conservative watchdog Empire Center for Public Policy, said that the raid that ultimately led to Peanut’s death demonstrates how the DEC is “arguably the most powerful state agency.”
“They have sweeping authority that, as this case shows, allows them to enter private homes and seize private property with what appears in this case to be questionable justification,” he said, adding, “Some of the blame falls on New York state lawmakers, who haven’t provided adequate oversight.”
“Lest there be any doubt that Democrats in New York are out of control,” wrote attorney and conservative columnist Jeff Childers, “note that this is the same political party that literally tried to open covid quarantine camps during the pandemic, until my good friend and fellow lawyer Bobbi Ann Cox sued to shut it down.
[A judge’s ruling in the 2022 case that quarantine camps are unconstitutional is currently under appeal by the State of NY. See Sidebar]
***
Battle Over Quarantine Camps in NY is Not Over
A small-firm attorney Bobbi Ann Cox, with the support of a number of NY Republican legislators, won a historic lawsuit against the State in 2022 over a largely overlooked clause in a DOH health regulation that would have granted unbridled power to unelected Department of Health bureaucrats.
That regulation, passed under Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, empowers NY State to establish “quarantine camps” where citizens can be taken against their will. This tyrannical law empowers the Department of Health to brand a person “contagious” and therefore in need of being quarantined indefinitely for “public safety” reasons.
According to this law, DOH bureaucrats don’t have to prove the person is actually sick or is a health threat to others. They just need to claim they were possibly exposed to a disease. That alone empowers authorities to lock them up.
After Judge Ronald Ploetz ruled the law was unconstitutional, Governor Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James appealed the ruling to a higher court which overturned it. The case is now under appeal with the NY Supreme Court, whose ruling will be final.
“If this law by a non-legislative body is allowed to stand,” said attorney Cox, “it will signal to all NY agencies that they can come up with arbitrary regulations that conflict with the Constitution and with state laws and impose them on the citizenry.”
***
‘Proposal One’—Democrats’ Trojan Horse
Republican legislators together with attorney Cox have been vocal opponents of a radical move by NY Democrats—a proposed amendment to the NYS Constitution called “Proposal Number One” (or “Prop 1” on the ballot.).
Proposal One is a proposed change to the NYS Constitution, deceptively marketed as the Equal Rights Amendment, although it’s actually about injecting a woke agenda into the constitution that will have dire consequences if it passes (and is allowed to stand).
The amendment has been called a “Trojan Horse” for pretending it’s about protecting minorities from being discriminated against. In reality, the rights it seeks to grant these groups would abolish and erode the constitutional rights and civic safeguards that have historically defined a democratic society.
The amendment, whose fate will be decided by the time this column goes to press, would grant sweeping power to the ruling power elites to regulate freedom of speech, the press and religion, all in the name of protecting minorities and “downtrodden” groups from discrimination or “unequal treatment.”
Proposal One would allow illegal immigrants to claim the same rights and benefits as New Yorkers including government assistance, Medicare, social security and disability compensation. It would make New York a permanent “Sanctuary state” from where illegal migrants could not be deported.
It could eventually include the right of illegal immigrants to vote.
The new amendment to the NY Constitution would abolish women’s “safe spaces” such as women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and showers in public facilities for “discriminating” against the opposite gender.
It would also erode parents’ rights to be involved in educational and medical decisions regarding their children. Children are one of the groups the new amendment seeks to “protect” from having their civic rights violated (by parents dictating to them.)
Warm, Fuzzy Language Masks Radical Woke Goals
What is insidious about the Proposal One is that it doesn’t admit to any of these proposed radical provisions on the ballot itself, but provides a benign-sounding summary with warm, fuzzy language about “protecting” people from “unequal treatment.”
It also conveys the erroneous impression that civil rights protections are not part of the current NY state constitution, making Proposition One urgently needed—which is totally false.
The actual summary of Proposal One reads:
Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment
This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and gender, including gender orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.
A “YES” vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution
A “NO” vote leaves these protections out of the State Constitution.
What is Proposal One’s Real Agenda?
Only in the language of the amendment itself, which voters have no opportunity to see at voting time, does it become clear that the amendment is a tool to foist woke ideology and practices onto all New Yorkers.
For example, paragraph B of the amendment allows the government to punish or prosecute a person, institution or business in order to prevent discrimination or merely “unequal treatment.”
“Unequal treatment” can be stretched to mean anything one wants it to mean. It can be interpreted to mean refusing to hire someone who is not competent in favor of one who is. It can mean grading students according to their ability even though this naturally results in “unequal” outcomes.
Under Proposal One, people can be prosecuted for new “crimes” that never before existed.
Under this amendment, a school that refuses to accept a student or hire a teacher who practices a deviant lifestyle can be hauled into court and prosecuted for discriminating against them or violating their civil rights.
Currently, a New York school found guilty of this violation of civil law can lose government funding. Under the new amendment, however, the party responsible for not accepting or hiring deviants can be heavily fined or arrested.
Religious institutions can find themselves running afoul of the new law by disseminating teachings that speak out against immoral practices now “protected” by the newly passed amendment.
Legal experts say the passage of this amendment would empower extremists within the Democratic Party to steer New York State toward a society shaped by radical far-left ideology.
Hopefully, voters will defeat Proposal One. If it does pass by a majority vote, it is sure to face vigorous constitutional challenges before it can be implemented.
