If Tim Kaine’s right, America’s founders were wrong



Riley Barnes appeared this week before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for his nomination as assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Normally, such a hearing would barely make the news. But then Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) spoke up.

You might remember the junior U.S. senator from Virginia as Hillary Clinton’s failed running mate in 2016. On Wednesday, he revealed he wouldn’t make a very good U.S. history professor either.

If rights come from God, then no politician — not Trump, not Kaine, not anyone — can take them away.

Barnes made a simple and obvious point — one that any elementary school student in a classroom still reading the Declaration of Independence (a rarity these days in public schools) would recognize. He said:

In his first remarks to State Department employees, Secretary [Marco] Rubio emphasized that we are a nation founded on a powerful principle: All men are created equal, because our rights come from God our creator — not from our laws, not from our governments.

That’s almost word-for-word from the Declaration of Independence.

Barnes continued:

We are a nation of individuals, each made in the image of God and possessing an inherent dignity. This is a truth our founders understood as essential to American self-government.

That second point, while not a direct quote from the Declaration, clearly flows from it. We have dignity because we are made by God, not by blind chance. And we have dignity above the rest of creation because we are made in His image, with rational souls and moral responsibility.

Most importantly, Barnes emphasized: “Natural rights are a blessing and an immutable reality.”

Governments change. Officials come and go. But America’s founders wanted human rights grounded in something unchanging. Rights granted by a government can be taken away by a government. Rights given by God cannot. That’s why the Declaration calls them “unalienable.”

The Kaine mutiny

Kaine’s response to Barnes was revealing. He worried that if we say rights come from God, we are on the brink of turning into theocratic Iran after 250 years of freedom from God. He insisted that governments — not God — give us our rights.

This is the logic behind much of the modern left. It explains why leftists defend ending a human life in elective abortion, treat children as property of the state that parents only borrow, and impose endless mandates on citizens — from useless masks to DEI speech codes. If rights come from the government, then the government can take them away whenever it wants.

This moment recalled then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) grilling Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas decades ago about his belief in natural law. “Which natural law?” Biden asked smugly, as if he had just delivered the ultimate gotcha. Like Kaine, Biden only managed to display his ignorance.

Can we know God?

Kaine claims that appealing to God makes America no different from Iran. But this ignores two things:

  1. Christianity and Islam are not the same. Islam teaches that forgiveness comes through obedience to its five pillars. Christianity teaches that justification is by faith in Christ alone; even perfect law-keeping from this day forward cannot erase past sin.
  2. The real issue is knowledge, not theocracy. Can we know the true and living God? Or are we trapped in skepticism, left to rely on politicians’ shifting opinions?

Kaine assumes appeals to God are just private religious opinions with no claim to truth. He insists we must build our laws only on government authority rather than a religious leader. But this skepticism undermines knowing everything else — including government itself.

RELATED: Self-evident truths aren’t so self-evident any more

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If there is no unchanging standard, how does any ruler know what is just or unjust, good or evil? Personal feelings? Evolutionary accidents? Political popularity? That is an incoherent theory of law. And it tells us why Democrats rely so heavily on appeals to emotion rather than sound arguments.

Why this matters

What Kaine and others like him call us to do — unwittingly — is rise to the challenge. We must show that God is real, that His existence is clear, and that rights grounded in Him are unchangeable because they rest on divine reality, not shifting political power.

It’s helpful when Democrats like Kaine stumble so publicly. They expose the intellectual vacuum at the heart of modern secularism. The question for us is whether we will rise to the moment and defend the truths in the Declaration of Independence — truths that remain self-evident because they come from God, not government.

The American project anchors freedom not in government permission slips but in the God who created us. That is what Kaine and the left cannot admit. Because if rights come from God, then no politician — not Trump, not Kaine, not anyone — can take them away. And that truth, still self-evident after nearly 250 years, remains the foundation of American liberty.

We bought an illegal superfood in Colorado — here’s what I learned



When my friend asked me to drive him to a town 30 minutes south of where we live in Colorado to pick up a gallon of milk, I thought he had lost his mind. But as he explained a few things to me as we drove, I realized there was nothing wrong with my friend — it was the government that had really gone off the rails.

As it turns out, this wasn’t your run-of-the-mill gallon of milk, and this trip was dangerously close to being illegal. Our crime? We were going to buy a gallon of raw milk.

You can tell things are backward and upside down if California is one of the most deregulated states in the nation for raw milk sales.

Driving down to Castle Rock, Colorado, I tried to figure out how my friend had gotten into such a niche trend (as it seemed to me at the time). He told me that influencers like Paul Saladino, M.D., played a major role in pushing him over the edge and starting his life of crime.

What is raw milk?

Raw milk is milk that has not undergone the high-temperature pasteurization process. This process purportedly kills bacteria that contaminates milk, but this contamination occurs when the dairy farm is kept in poor conditions. Raw dairy farms are known for their superior cleanliness, which not only produces a better product but also lowers the risk of contamination. Pasteurization simply corrects for the lower standards connected to mass production.

By scientists' own admission, moreover, pasteurization was implemented in the early 20th century to accommodate mass consumption. Poor sanitation conditions in cities led to greater risks of contamination of the milk, which pasteurization corrected for.

Raw milk is also remarkably similar to human breast milk, which is widely considered to be the most nutrient rich "superfood" humans can possibly consume. Breast milk is obviously not regulated or pasteurized, which makes it odd that cow milk needs to be regulated to such a high degree.

Federal regulation, 21 CFR § 1240.61, mandates that all milk products “intended for direct human consumption” shall be heated to varying high temperatures in order to destroy “microbial organisms of public health significance.” It also prohibits the sale of raw milk across state lines but leaves the regulation of raw milk to the discretion of individual states beyond that.

RELATED: The truth about raw milk the government doesn't want you to know: 'Close to a perfect food'

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Pasteurization is a requirement for selling milk at the federal level. It has become standard practice for the production and sale of milk, and alternatives like raw milk have become an almost unshakeable taboo. Luckily, there are very few places where raw milk is completely illegal to acquire, but there are many shades of legality between full acceptance and full prohibition.

Paul Saladino has been a vocal advocate online for raw milk and has been a leading figure in the MAHA movement. And he isn’t niche, either: He has even taken a raw milk shot with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the White House as he raised awareness about what he calls a suppressed superfood.

The raw milk circus

The states have interpreted and enforced federal regulation of raw milk in various ways, leading states to adopt several strange loopholes. However, the amount of hoops that raw-milk enjoyers have to jump through in some states is astounding.

Surprisingly, California has some of the most lenient laws in the country regarding the regulation of raw milk. You can see from Raw Farm USA’s website that the company is, however, strictly limited to intrastate sales for its whole product line. The company can only sell a small and very qualified selection of its products across state lines.

You can tell things are backward and upside down if California is one of the most deregulated states in the nation when it comes to raw milk. And it only gets stranger from here in this hall of mirrors.

In Colorado, where my friend and I bought raw milk, he had to join what is called a “herd share.” Colorado state law defines a herd share as “an undivided interest in a cow, goat, or herd of cows or goats, created by a written contractual relationship between a consumer and a farmer.” The herd share stipulates that “the consumer has an interest with the farmer for care and milking, and under which the consumer is entitled to receive a share of milk from the cow, goat, or dairy herd.”

RELATED: RFK Jr., meat eaters, raw-milk drinkers slammed for 'conspiratorial beliefs' for daring to go against medical establishment

Photo by Natalie Behring/Getty Images

In case you skipped over that nonsense, it essentially says that if you want to buy raw milk, you have to buy part of a cow, similar to how you would buy stock in a company. Investors derive benefit from the success of the companies they invest in, and herd shareholders derive milk from their investment in the herd. More practically, herd shares are like a subscription to the farm and to a cow in the herd in which you pay monthly for the amount of milk you need.

This is a popular arraignment in several states, but it gets stranger in others. Here are two different maps that show the raw milk regulative landscape of the United States.

In North Carolina, for example, farms can sell raw dairy products but are required to label them "animal feed" or "not fit for human consumption." This label also appears as "pet food" in some places. This seems to have a deterrent effect on a lot of people, but influencers like Paul Saladino have insisted on its safety. Here’s Paul Saladino’s explanation of why he has no problem eating pet food (raw kefir).

The experts weigh in

The medical establishment pushes out article after article warning against the potential harms of raw milk, yet these same articles from the “experts” warn that the consumption of raw milk poses particular risk to “pregnant people,” for example. Don’t they mean “pregnant women”? Their unscientific approach to biology makes many people hesitant to accept their nutrition advice.

Not to open a can of worms, but I can’t imagine trusting the CDC for health advice after the COVID vaccine fiasco, to name one example. And yet, the CDC says, “Choosing pasteurized milk is the best way to keep you and your family safe.”

There is also an obvious bias from the “experts” when they talk about the choice to consume raw milk. As explained earlier, states can choose to regulate the sale of raw milk as they deem fit, but some studies make it sound like the states that allow the sale of raw milk in some capacity are "cheating the system": “These arrangements have been used to attempt to circumvent state and federal law prohibitions on traditional retail sales of unpasteurized milk.”

RELATED: FDA’s newest recall proves Elon Musk right — and boosts the MAHA movement

Photo by Natalie Behring/Getty Images

Allow me to translate: By “circumvention,” the experts mean to say that people voted to allow for the limited sale of raw milk within regulation.

It starts to become clear that the scientific consensus is the only allowable opinion for raw milk — among many other things — and all other choices should be off the table, according to the experts.

Risk management

The experts say that raw milk can kill you, and many people point to the same figures: 675 illnesses, two deaths in six years. While this may sound alarming at first, raw milk has a smaller chance of killing you than a shark attack, which is incredibly rare and unlikely.

While it is true that more people consume pasteurized milk than raw milk, it's a surprise to many that pasteurized milk, in fact, carries a risk of death that is numerically higher than raw milk, according to a 2022 study:

Thirty-two disease outbreaks were linked to dairy consumption. Twenty outbreaks involving unpasteurized products resulted in 449 confirmed cases of illness, 124 hospitalizations, and five deaths. Twelve outbreaks involving pasteurized products resulted in 174 confirmed cases of illness, 134 hospitalizations, 17 deaths, and seven fetal losses. Listeria accounted for 10 out of 12 outbreaks from pasteurized products from 2007 through 2020.

When you think about the statistics in this broader view, fearmongering statements like, “Some people say raw milk is a ‘natural’ food that provides health benefits. But no matter how clean and well-cared-for an animal is, bacteria can still make their way into the milk. And without pasteurization to kill them, these bacteria can cause serious illness and death,” start to sound pretty outlandish.

Plus, the COVID fiasco proved the government doesn’t really care about your safety. Why do we still follow its “recommendations”?

So before you buy into the surface-level fear tactics that scientists and the government throw at you, do your own research and come to your own conclusions. And the next time you have $11.95 to spend, consider giving raw milk a fair chance.

Liz Wheeler: The CDC is blowing up my phone with 'invasive' questions



Over the past couple of weeks, BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler has been receiving a series of disturbing and invasive phone calls from the United States government. Not from her contacts within the Trump administration — but from the CDC.

“The Centers for Disease Control inquiring about the vaccination status of my children,” Wheeler says on “The Liz Wheeler Show.” “You and I must raise our voices to put a stop to this, because to call this a violation of privacy would be the understatement of the year.”

“To call this invasive would hardly even describe the level of government overreach that the government bureaucrats, which you and I have not elected in the CDC, are facing,” she continues.


In one of the calls from the CDC, Wheeler was told the organization was conducting a “national immunization survey” and was asked if she had any vaccine-age children from the ages of 6 months to 17 years old living in her household.

“The purpose of it is for the government to collect data about what percentage of children have complied — or parents of these children have complied — with the CDC’s recommended childhood immunization schedule,” Wheeler explains.

“So, my taxpayer dollars are not only paying for the survey; they’re paying for the government bureaucrats who hate me to purchase my phone number,” she continues, adding, “It is time for the HHS Secretary, RFK Jr., to put a stop to this.”

While others have attempted to claim this is no big deal, as it’s “standard,” Wheeler believes that anyone who cares about their medical freedom should be outraged.

“Do we want to be asking parents these questions? Do we want to be violating the privacy of children in this way? Because this is not just a personal affront to me as a mother and me as an individual. There are security risks to you that are inherent to this program,” Wheeler says.

“We don’t have to accept this simply because public health officials tell us that it’s standard,” she continues. “Public health officials also told us it was standard to social distance, to mask our toddlers, to lock down our churches, to stay in our homes, to take an experimental vaccine.”

“The era of taking public health experts' word for it has come to end, and so must this policy,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Biden’s Lawfare Nearly Ripped This South Dakota Ranching Family Apart

This family faced jail sentences so extreme 'they were told to find alternatives to raise their young children,' Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins said.

Democrat Bill Would Create ‘Prison Pipeline’ For Illinois’ Homeschooling Parents, Critics Say

Illinois’ Democrat-run legislature is fast-tracking a bill that critics say attempts to criminalize parents’ ability to homeschool their children in the Prairie State. This bill “continues that prison pipeline for homeschool parents,” said Will Estrada, senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association. Dubbed “The Homeschool Act” (HB 2827), the measure in question seemingly […]

Government overreach warped a law to protect the internet. Now Congress might let it die. Here’s why.



Why does Section 230 exist? Section 230 shields tech companies from liability for the user-generated content they host. If you listened to the 230 absolutists here (one of whom even has a 230 tattoo), the story of 230 might sound like a divine creation story.

In the beginning, God created Section 230. Now, the internet was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the blessings of liberty were hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be Section 230,” and there was Section 230.

So why would Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) even think about sunsetting this law, potentially returning the internet to the world of darkness? In the real story of Section 230, the government created Section 230. And that story begins with good intentions but ends with government overreach.

Let us begin with the good intentions. Imagine that, hypothetically, a rapist and human trafficker becomes a popular social media influencer on X. And one of his victims tweets that he is a rapist and human trafficker. The influencer then files a frivolous defamation lawsuit against not just the victim—but also against X for hosting her tweet.

In that situation, X can invoke the legal shield of Section 230, and the judge will dismiss the lawsuit. But that is only where the story begins, not where it ends.

Imagine that you’re in high school, and you learn from your classmates that there’s child porn of you on Twitter. Multiple people contact Twitter to take it down, and you even provide Twitter a copy of your ID when asked, but it still doesn't take it down — until a federal agent intervenes.

You sue Twitter, alleging that it violated federal child pornography laws. Twitter does not even attempt to contest that allegation. Instead, it invokes the legal shield of Section 230, and the judge dismisses your claim.

That, in a nutshell, is the real story of Doe v. Twitter: “Twitter does not argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of Section 2252A but contend this claim is barred by CDA § 230 immunity. The Court agrees.”

In tech policy, we must analyze the full scope of a law. In Moody v. NetChoice (2024), the court chided both sides for confining their battle to the “heartland applications” of a law and for ignoring the “full scope” of the law’s coverage.

And while the 230 absolutists will defend Section 230 based on its heartland applications — defamation and other forms of tort liability — the full scope of Section 230 touches every single federal and state law, including federal child pornography laws.

Section 230 is the government. It’s a special immunity for the tech industry that’s created by the government. Under normal circumstances, the story of Doe v. Twitter should be a story where injustice triumphs because of government overreach.

Yet, when Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin attempted to narrowly reform Section 230 for child porn alone, they were met with an apocalyptic reaction from both D.C. lobbyists and D.C. think tanks. And the worst culprits were the (corporate) libertarians who supposedly hate government overreach.

Perhaps that explains why both senators are now trying to sunset Section 230: to obtain leverage for 230 reform. In D.C., the easiest path is one where the Congress does nothing. Today, Section 230 stays the same if nothing happens. Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin lack meaningful leverage — even if they are attempting to reform 230 for child porn alone.

But if Section 230 sunsets on January 1, 2027, it gets repealed if Congress does nothing. Now Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin hold the leverage. And while I could speak for hours to debunk the bad (or even bad-faith) arguments against 230 reform, those bad arguments also lose their power when the people making them lose their leverage.

No immunity for child porn does not mean, for example, that a tech company would be directly liable for every piece of child porn that a user posts. No federal or state law imposes such strict liability — in part because that would be unconstitutional under Smith v. California (1959). For all this talk of how Section 230 is “the Internet’s First Amendment,” repealing Section 230 would not repeal the actual First Amendment.

No immunity for child porn does mean, however, that if any incident like Doe v. Twitter were to repeat itself, government overreach would not block the victims from seeking justice.

Exclusive: Lawn and car guys will cheer after Chip Roy introduces bill slashing gas can regulations



Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas introduced a bill Thursday that would repeal gas can regulations implemented under President Barack Obama's administration.

In the early 2000s, the vents in gas cans were removed due to a series of environmental regulations aimed at reducing vapor emissions. The vents by design prevented a vacuum from forming inside the gas can and would allow the gasoline to pour out smoothly.

'Pointless government regulations have ruined many commonsense products, and everyone knows it.'

But after the regulations were implemented and the vents were removed, the stream of gasoline poured unpredictably and often spilled, hindering a once simple and efficient design.

Roy's bill would do away with these unnecessary regulations, restoring the functionality of gas cans.

"Pointless government regulations have ruined many commonsense products, and everyone knows it," Roy told Blaze News. "The federal government does not need to be involved in every aspect of our lives, and we never needed them involved in our gas cans."

Roy points out that like many federal regulations, they often don't accomplish their intended purpose, and even if they do, it's at the cost of convenience. While the justification for the regulation was to prevent emissions, the new design often leads to more spills, which in turn leads to more emissions.

"The Gas Can Freedom Act will eliminate the unnecessary federal regulations that have made gas cans dysfunctional and allow Americans to return to simple gas cans that actually work," Roy added. "It is long past time to make gas cans functional again."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DARPA is out of control



Few organizations embody the darker side of technological advancement like DARPA, the U.S. Department of Defense’s research arm. From stealth aircraft to the foundation of the internet, its innovations have reshaped warfare and infiltrated daily life. As anyone familiar with government agencies might expect, DARPA routinely crosses ethical lines, fueling serious concerns about privacy and control. Its relentless pursuit of cutting-edge technology has turned it into a force for domestic surveillance and behavioral manipulation. The agency operates with near-impunity, seamlessly shifting its battlefield innovations into the lives of ordinary Americans.

This precrime framework carries Orwellian implications.

Precrime predictions and de-banking dystopia

One of DARPA's most unsettling ventures is its development of an algorithmic Theory of Mind, a technology designed to predict and manipulate human behavior by mimicking an adversary's situational awareness. Simply put, this isn’t just spying; it’s a road map for controlling behavior. While it's framed as a military tool, the implications for civilian life are alarming. By harvesting massive amounts of behavioral data, DARPA aims to build algorithms that can predict decisions, emotions, and actions with unnerving precision. Imagine a world where such insights are weaponized to sway public opinion, deepen divides, or silence dissent before it even begins. Some might say we’re already there. Perhaps we are — but it can always get worse. Presented as a matter of national security, this kind of psychological manipulation poses a direct threat to free will and informed consent.

We live in a time when major agencies have shifted their focus inward. Domestic terrorism has become their new obsession. And in this climate, all Americans are fair game. The same surveillance and control mechanisms once reserved for foreign threats are now being quietly repurposed for monitoring, influencing, and manipulating the very people they claim to protect.

Equally alarming is DARPA’s Anticipatory and Adaptive Anti-Money Laundering program. Using artificial intelligence to predict illicit financial activities before they occur may sound like a noble pursuit, but this precrime framework carries Orwellian implications. A3ML casts an expansive surveillance net over ordinary citizens, scrutinizing their financial transactions for signs of wrongdoing. And as we all know, algorithms are far from infallible. They’re prone to bias, misinterpretation, and outright error, leaving individuals vulnerable to misidentification and false accusations. Consider the unsettling idea of being labeled a financial criminal because an algorithm misreads your spending habits. Soon, this won’t just be a hypothetical — it will be a reality.

Things are already bad enough.

Marc Andreessen, in a recent interview with Joe Rogan, highlighted the growing scourge of de-banking in America, where individuals sympathetic to Trump are unfairly targeted. This troubling trend underscores a larger issue: Algorithms, while often portrayed as impartial, are far from it. They’re engineered by humans, and in Silicon Valley, most of those humans lean left. Politically, the tide may be turning, but Silicon Valley remains dangerously blue, shaping systems that reflect its own ideological biases.

Without transparency and accountability, these systems risk evolving into even more potent tools of financial oppression, punishing innocent people and chipping away at the last shreds of trust in public institutions. Even worse, we could end up in a society where every purchase, every transaction, is treated like a potential red flag. In other words, a system eerily similar to China’s is looming — and it’s closer than most of us want to admit.

History’s lessons

These two programs align disturbingly well with DARPA’s history of domestic surveillance, most famously represented by the Total Information Awareness program. Launched after 9/11, TIA aimed to aggregate and analyze personal data on a massive scale, using everything from phone records to social media activity to predict potential terrorist threats. The program’s invasive methods sparked public outrage, leading to its official termination — though many believe its core technologies were quietly repurposed. This raises a critical question: How often do DARPA’s military-grade tools slip into civilian use, bypassing constitutional safeguards?

Too often, I suggest.

Who’s watching the watchers?

The implications of DARPA’s programs cannot be overstated. Operating under a dangerous degree of secrecy, the agency remains largely shielded from public scrutiny. This lack of transparency, combined with its sweeping technological ambitions, makes it nearly impossible to gauge the true extent of its activities or the safeguards — if any exist to prevent abuse.

We must ask how DARPA’s tools could be turned against the citizens they claim to protect. What mechanisms ensure that these technologies aren’t abused? Who holds DARPA accountable? Without strong oversight and clear ethical guidelines, the line between protecting the public and controlling it continues to blur.

Let’s hope someone in Donald Trump’s inner circle is paying attention — because the stakes couldn’t be higher.

DARPA is out of control.

Bernie Sanders backs DOGE, says 'Elon Musk is right'



Former Democrat turned independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont publicly endorsed the Department of Government Efficiency, a new agency in the upcoming administration aimed at reducing the bloated bureaucracy.

President-elect Donald Trump announced that tech mogul Elon Musk will be at the helm of the department alongside former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. While the department received a lot of expected praise from conservatives, Sanders also came out in support of DOGE.

'Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of "DOGE" for a very long time.'

"Elon Musk is right," Sanders said in a Sunday post on X. "The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It’s lost track of billions."

"Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud," Sanders continued. "That must change."

Trump announced on November 12, just one week after his landslide victory, that Musk and Ramaswamy would be leading the department.

"Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies - Essential to the 'Save America' Movement," Trump said in a statement on November 12.

"It will become, potentially, 'The Manhattan Project' of our time," Trump continued. "Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of 'DOGE' for a very long time. To drive this kind of drastic change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before."

Trump also detailed that the department will exist only through July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

What really happened in the shocking state raid, killing of beloved Peanut the squirrel? Turns out the government was wrong.



Peanut — the internet sensation squirrel — was taken from his home in New York by state officials in what the pet's owner has declared to be an act of government overreach. The beloved squirrel that took the internet by storm was then killed by government officials. Details are starting to leak as to what really happened during the shocking state raid and killing of a family's cherished pet.

Timeline of shocking state raid for a squirrel and a raccoon

Chemung County Executive Christopher J. Moss explained the timeline of events during a press conference on Tuesday.

The Chemung County Health Department’s Environmental Health Services received a complaint through an email on Oct. 19 about a squirrel and a raccoon living inside the home of Mark and Daniela Longo in Southport, New York. The complaint claimed the couple was not licensed to house the wild animals inside the home.

'We are filing a very big lawsuit.'

On Oct. 21, the complaint was forwarded to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Elmira Animal Control.

A day later, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation contacted the Chemung County Health Department to inform the agency that the "DEC is aware of an individual in Chemung County who is known to illegally possess an adult gray squirrel and at least 4 young raccoons," adding, "They may also be in possession of other illegal wildlife species."

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation declared, "We would like to know if the Health Department would recommend these animals be tested for rabies as a precaution for human safety."

On Oct. 23, the Chemung County Health Department contacted the New York State Department of Health's Zoonosis Program, which reportedly advised: "Wildlife cannot be confined like domestic animals, and if there was an exposure, the animals would need to be tested for rabies. Exposure is typically from a bite but can also be caused by saliva entering a wound or mucous membrane."

Government reportedly planned to euthanize squirrel days before raid, contradicting narrative

As Blaze News previously reported, state agents conducted a raid on the Longos' home on Oct. 30.

"And 10 to 12 DEC officers raided my house as if I was a drug dealer," Mark Longo stated. "I sat outside my house for five hours. I had to get a police escort to my bathroom."

"I wasn't even allowed to feed my rescue horses breakfast or lunch," Longo claimed. "I sat there like a criminal after they interrogated my wife to check out her immigration status."

Longo added, "They got a search warrant. Four departments and a judge signed off on a search warrant for a squirrel and a raccoon."

Longo said that the search lasted for five hours, and state agents went through "every cabinet, nook and cranny" of his home.

Government agents seized Longo's pets — Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon.

Both animals were allegedly euthanized later in the day, and their remains were sent to a laboratory for rabies testing.

State officials alleged that Peanut had bitten a DEC civilian wildlife biologist. Government officials claimed that the animal bite prompted a deadly rabies test to be conducted.

When wild animals are suspected of having rabies, the animals are euthanized and a portion of their brains are removed and tested.

"Determination of rabies status of animals other than domesticated animals requires euthanasia of the animal and testing of the animal’s brain for evidence of rabies virus," according to the New York State Department of Health.

The New York Post reported that the rabies report from Chemung County officials of Peanut and Fred stated: "Animal decap requested on: 10/30/24."

However, government officials reportedly had "multiple conversations" about euthanizing the animals before anyone was bitten.

"The NYSDEC had multiple conversations with the Chemung County Health Department and Elmira Animal Control on the euthanization process prior to anyone being bitten or the animals being seized," Moss stated on Tuesday.

Moss continued, "I think it’s important to point out that euthanization orders are almost always completed at the request of either the person exposed or an agency who is conducting an animal-related investigation, such as this. As depicted on both euthanization forms, both animals were brought to the Elmira Animal Control so that proper testing could be conducted."

Turns out the government was wrong

Moss revealed during Tuesday's press conference that both Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon tested negative for rabies.

Moss conceded that county officials would wait one or two days to assess the situation before euthanizing unauthorized animals.

Moss attempted to calm the frustrations of people who have been incensed by the killing of the two animals.

"I realize people want to vent. But at the end of the day I think you have to realize the seriousness of humans contracting rabies," Moss stated. "This is protocol from the state turned down to the county."

The death of Peanut the squirrel has ignited fierce reactions from fans across the country, including some who have issued death threats to officials with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Peanut's owner vows to get justice for his cherished pet's death

Mark Longo operates his property as an animal rescue.

Peanut, sometimes styled as P'Nut, was rescued seven years ago after its mother had allegedly been hit by a car in New York City, and Fred had recently been dropped on Longo's doorstep in need of care.

Longo remarked about his pet being killed, "It's not only torn my family apart, but Peanut was the cornerstone of our non-profit animal rescue."

“It was a 10-month investigation for a squirrel and a raccoon. We have murderers and rapists running the streets, and they didn’t get investigations like this," Longo told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo on Tuesday. “So you used all of our taxpayers’ money and our resources to conjure up a story about a squirrel and a raccoon that was so detrimental to our society that they needed to come and kill them.”

The distraught pet owner declared, “I have to live in this state, and these people don’t have the stones to give me a call to say, ‘Hey, I killed your animals, also I cut their heads off, also Peanut doesn’t have rabies,’ like we all knew at the beginning of this story.”

Longo said he would wage a "very big" lawsuit in retaliation for the death of Peanut the squirrel — who has nearly 1 million followers on Instagram.

"Absolutely, we are filing a very big lawsuit," Longo said during an appearance on NewsNation's "Cuomo." "Not only did you violate my constitutional rights, you need to come up with an explanation as to why you murdered these animals," he said.

Longo proclaimed that the entire incident was a major example of "government overreach.”

Longo launched a GoFundMe campaign to "support P'Nuts Freedom Farm."

"In memory of Peanut and Fred, we want to shine a light on the mission of P’nuts Freedom Farm, which tirelessly rescues and provides care for vulnerable animals," Longo wrote. "Their lives were a testament to the importance of compassion and kindness toward all creatures, and we are committed to honoring them by continuing this vital work."

Longo noted, "All proceeds from our fundraising efforts will directly benefit the rescue and care of other animals at P’nuts Freedom Farm, ensuring that we can continue to provide a safe haven for those in need. Together, we can make a difference and ensure that no other animals suffer a fate like Peanut and Fred."

At the time of publication, the GoFundMe campaign had raised over $230,000.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!