NY Republicans push ‘Peanut's Law' after beloved pet squirrel was seized, killed by state agents
New York Republicans are pushing a new law to protect animals after a beloved pet squirrel and internet star named P'Nut was taken and killed by state environmental officers late last year.
The bill, called "Peanut's Law: The Humane Animal Protection Act," would require a 72-hour waiting period before the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) can euthanize any seized animal. It would also give animal owners the chance for a hearing before the state takes or puts down their animals.
P'Nut and another pet squirrel named Fred were taken from Mark and Daniela Longo's upstate farm last October after someone filed an anonymous complaint. Both animals were killed and tested for rabies, and both tests came back negative. The squirrel had a huge following on social media, with P'Nut accruing nearly one million followers to watch content of the critter and his family.Owners Of Beloved Peanut The Squirrel Plan To Sue New York State Over Seizure And Killing By Authorities
Once news spread on P'Nut's Instagram page, backlash over DEC's actions spread like wildfire online. At the time, everyone from Elon Musk to President Trump weighed in on the killing of the dear family pets.Musk referred to the killing back in November as "the whole squirrel thing" while on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz (R-Nassau), who is sponsoring the bill, said it's about fairness. "This is about due process," he said, adding that animals should not be killed unless they're an immediate danger.
Peanut The Pet Squirrel Taken Away By New York State Officials From Adopted Home, May Be Euthanized
Read On The Fox News App
The Longos, who run an animal sanctuary, say they were never told why their pets were taken. They hope the new bill will stop similar cases from happening again. Mark Longo said of the new bill: "I sit here trying not to cry, but passing this law will be a movement to make sure that animal rights are not overlooked anymore."Peanut or "P'Nut" was only a baby when the Longos rescued him. The squirrel adapted to his adoptive human family after his real mother was run over by a car when he was just five weeks old.
"They were not dangerous. They were not sick. They were not wild threats roaming the streets," said Assemblyman Blumencranz. "They were rescues — loved, nurtured, and safe."
Supporters of the legislation say it's a common-sense move to protect both animals and their owners.
"Here is the cold, hard truth. It is too little, too late. Words don't save P'Nut and Fred, and words won't save the next animal, or the next family, unless we change the law."An attorney who represents the Longo family did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.Original article source: NY Republicans push 'Peanut's Law' after beloved pet squirrel was seized, killed by state agents
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
6 minutes ago
- USA Today
The LA immigration riots reminds that neither party cares about law and order
The LA immigration riots reminds that neither party cares about law and order | Opinion Democrats and Republicans have a history of ignoring the law when it suits their political needs. Show Caption Hide Caption Newsom, Trump latest clash in long-standing feud Governor Gavin Newsom hit back at the Trump administration for deploying military troops to LA following ICE protests. President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have been fighting over protests and riots taking place in Los Angeles. In response to attacks on federal immigration officers, Trump involved the National Guard and members of the military in order to get things under control. Newsom responded by asking the courts to intervene and saying Trump has "lost it." But this controversy is exhausting because it is clear that nobody involved is interested in the even distribution of justice. Everyone is acting to serve their own political ends, which has been happening for years. Neither political party has a monopoly on law and order. Those who think their preferred party is the one that truly champions the rule of law are falling for partisan lies and likely have a short memory. Democrats and Republicans have undermined the rule of law There is a great irony to Trump aggressively responding to the June LA riots when he just months ago pardoned those charged with crimes in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including those who assaulted police officers. Trump's law and order campaign is entirely theatrical. He has no problem pardoning perpetrators of political violence or crime otherwise when they are aligned with him. He rewards people who commit political violence on his behalf and brings down the hammer against those who do so in the name of causes he is opposed to. It is a completely partisan scheme that goes against what the rule of law actually means. That doesn't mean I disagree with Trump, though. When cities like LA hardly do anything to stop violence, Trump gets the political opportunity to step in and stop riots. Now, these protests are spreading to more cities, which is likely to result in broader violence and more fights with the executive. Opinion: Newsom comes with too much baggage. Democrats need a new voice for 2028. That goes both ways. Remember when Democrats tried to market themselves as the party of law and order as Trump faced a slate of criminal trials during his reelection campaign. That's laughable in light of their past actions. Democrats rightly blamed Trump for his provocation in 2021 after Democrats did the same thing during the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. There was no shortage of elected Democrats who simply stood by as violence and looting swept the country, and in some cases, they actively encouraged such violence. Biden was no better on the pardons front, brazenly using the presidential pen to corruptly pardon his son and other family members. Biden has previously posted on social media that nobody is above the law. Neither major party really cares about political violence; they only care about it when they can score political points or when they have to defend themselves against the ramifications of it. Following the law has become a partisan issue America now has different rules for enforcing the law, depending on who is in charge. It doesn't matter if you assaulted police officers while breaking into the U.S. Capitol; you'll be generously pardoned four years later. It doesn't matter if you participate in mass riots and looting in the name of racial justice, Democrats will sit by idly as you do more than $1 billion in damage to American cities. I am exhausted by watching politicians pretend that they care about violence beyond the political forces that it brings. Opinion: Trump's dysfunctional government can learn from these Republican governors It's clear that neither major party can be trusted to present leaders whom Americans can believe will enforce the rule of law justly. However, the best solution for our problem of partisan law and order is to stop electing leaders whom we cannot trust to enforce the law impartially. The past two administrations have done much to undermine the rule of law, and Americans eventually need to decide that we are sick of it. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's What 18 People Think About What Trump Said About Possibly Pardoning Diddy
As you probably know by now, Sean 'Diddy' Combs was indicted in 2024 on federal charges including sex trafficking and racketeering. Recently, HuffPost and BuzzFeed wrote about how Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked the president if he would consider pardoning Diddy. Trump told Doocy, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics, that relationship busted up, from what I read." "I don't know, he didn't tell me that. But I'd read some … nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden." Trump, who once ran in the same wealthy social circles as Diddy, continued, "You know, it's different. You become a much different person when you run for politics, and you do what's right. I could do other things, and I'm sure he'd like me, and I'm sure other people would like me, but it wouldn't be as good for our country." In other words, Trump didn't give a definitive answer on whether he would pardon Diddy. People in the comments had a lot to say on the topic. Here are some of the best replies: 1."If Diddy is found guilty, he should not be pardoned. Stop pardoning people who were found or plead guilty." —cole Melton 2."When considering whether to pardon someone, Trump couldn't care less about whether a person is guilty. As long as the person has some kind words for Trump and/or helped Trump get even richer, the person has a good chance of getting a pardon." "Ask Trump voters if they voted for this corruption of the pardon system." —Carl Hayman 3."The fact that Trump commented on pardoning Diddy during an active, ongoing trial…I am just speechless. It completely undermines the entire justice system." —hampster Related: 40 Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Creepy Wikipedia Pages 4."Always follow the money. Trump is using the power to pardon as an ATM. He only cares about the next money making opportunity, not law and order, justice, the Constitution, or keeping the guilty in jail. And most assuredly not you and me." —d icard 5."Even MAGA people on Fox and Breitbart are exploding over this. They hate this idea. Democrats need to keep the topic of Trump possibly pardoning Diddy front and center. Talk about it whenever they can. Keep it in the headlines." —TACO Trump 6."He says, 'I would certainly look at the facts.' And then what? Ignore them like he did with the results of the 2020 election? It used to be that if you wanted to win a high political office, you had to have character. Now all it takes (at least if you're a Republican) is to be a character." —Carl Olson 7."'You are the company you keep' has never been more true than as it relates to these two." —kylemcgee Related: 23 Cute, Happy, And Wholesome Posts I Saw On The Internet This Week That You Absolutely Need To See 8."There is no justice system if anyone can simply prove love to their president and get a pardon." —Cory Crete "Pardons are now for sale." —James Gettings 9."Well, being liked is obviously the most important factor in any pardon." —Les Vogt 10."This isn't just grotesque; it's the rot made visible. Trump floating a pardon for a man indicted for sex trafficking, while reminiscing about party invitations and wounded egos, is less a statement of justice than a confession of moral bankruptcy. It's not about innocence or guilt — it's about whether someone 'used to really like' him." "In Trump's world, the law isn't sacred; it's a velvet rope outside a nightclub, waved aside with the casual shrug of a man picking names from a guest list." —Miles West 11."If our Republic is still standing in a few years, a different Congress must amend the Constitution to limit presidential pardons." —Pedro Antonio Pastrano 12."No more presidential pardons. I would let them commute death sentences, but nothing more. Enough of this abuse. These people had their day in court and have had chances to appeal. I don't trust anyone with that power anymore. Get rid of it." —Charles James 13."It's so weird (but so typical) that Trump has to tell everyone that Diddy 'used to like me a lot,' as if that's the most relevant thing about the issue. What a terrible thing it must be to live a life actually believing inside that you're incapable of being loved. That's the overriding reality that has made Trump who he is — an immensely insecure, flawed man." —David Hardy 14."'When you're president you do what's right.' I can't believe he said that because he certainly doesn't abide by that whatsoever." —Jenny Tayla 15."Whenever he talks about anyone — and I mean anyone — he always comments on if that person likes him or not. Narcissistic dictator." —whatever19 16."I pray that Trump does not pardon Diddy. He's just as bad as Jeffrey Epstein and R. Kelly." —smileyzombie492 17."Trump is sans empathy. He is a woman-hating dumpster fire." —jamesnylan finally, "At least he didn't say he would. I was relieved to not read even that. The bar is low. 😭" —goldenovercoat28 The article people commented on originally appeared on HuffPost. Some replies have been edited for length and clarity. Also in Internet Finds: Lawyers Are Sharing Their Juiciest "Can You Believe It?!" Stories From The Courtroom, And They're As Surprising As You'd Expect Also in Internet Finds: People Are Sharing "The Most Believable Conspiracy Theories," And Now I'm Questioning Everything I Thought I Knew Also in Internet Finds: 51 People Who Quickly Discovered Why Their Hilariously Clueless Partner Was Single Before Meeting Them
San Francisco Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
