What a jerk!
Homeless Women Less Than 6 Months Pregnant Will Be Kicked Out Of Motel Program
From Burlington Free Press: “March 29, 2025 Republican Gov. Phil Scott has signed an executive order allowing families with children under age 19 and “medically vulnerable” Vermonters who face eviction from hotel and motel rooms on April 1 to remain in the state’s General Assistance program through June 30. Pregnant women in their third trimester or who will enter their third trimester between April 1 and June 30 are among those who qualify as “medically vulnerable.”
SEE WHAT 5 MONTHS PREGNANT LOOKS LIKE,
and ask what in holy hell is Phil Scott doing threatening to put them out doors treated worse than a homeless dog?
Please read Governor Phil Scott's Executive Order Yourself (he has ice in his veins!)
https://governor.vermont.gov/sites/scott/files/documents/EO%2003-25%20General%20Assistance%20Emergency%20Housing.pdf
“v. is a woman in the third trimester of pregnancy or a woman who will enter
the third trimester of pregnancy during the period April 1, 2025 to June 30
2025.”
(3rd trimester means 6 months pregnant)
Let's Be Bewildered Together Over Governor Phil Scott's Math Skills
First, please note that U.S. Senator Cory Booker is speaking “LIVE”
right now at 9:51 PM March 31 about the horrors of cuts to Medicaid
which will devastate pregnant women.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/floor_activity_pail.htm
Now, back to Vermont Governor Phil Scott’s Executive Order of March 28, 2025
EXECUTIVE ORDER 03-25
https://governor.vermont.gov/sites/scott/files/documents/EO%2003-25%20General%20Assistance%20Emergency%20Housing.pdf
“WHEREAS, … the Vermont Legislature has
maintained an expanded number of emergency hotel/motel rooms; and
WHEREAS, the hotel/motel program will cost Vermont taxpayers an estimated $45 million for Fiscal Year 2025 …”
WHEREAS, the program is legislatively capped at 1,100 available rooms for a maximum 80-day per year stay to allow for individuals and families to seek suitable shelter and housing options except during the months of November 1, 2024-March 31, 2025 when the program ballooned to 1,461 households at a cost of almost $16 million for that period; …”
O.K., let’s stop here, in the past I have stated that you can do a real estate search for
“unrestricted land” in Vermont. You can go camping on this land or stick a trailer on it or a pre-fabricated steel building and fill it with tents.
Let’s do this again because it is worth repeating this exercise, in case any non-profits want to take up ideas like this. See if you can search available grants at https://www.grants.gov/
Now, next you want to see a full listing of unrestricted land for sale in Vermont and you will see excellent deals for many acres. https://www.landsearch.com/unrestricted/vermont
Next, check out how low priced some camper trailers are that sleep 4 people.
https://rv.campingworld.com/rvclass/small-camper-rvs
Next, for each unrestricted piece of land you buy, you need a 100 foot or larger steel building to park the camper trailers in for safety and to protect them from harsh weather.
https://quote.uspatriotsteel.com/
I added up hundreds of acres of unrestricted land and the cost of steel buildings and the cost of trailer campers at $13,000. each, and I still couldn’t spend as much money as Governor Phil Scott has spent for his limited-time solution.
A long term solution is far more cost effective and costs millions of dollars less than what is currently being spent.
Make the Homeless Shelter Math Make Sense Before DOGE Comes to Vermont!
You don’t want Elon Musk’s gang of notorious DOGE
slashers to come to Vermont,
so Governor Phil Scott should put his thinking cap on!
I want to try a little math here:
Governor Phil Scott’s executive order states
an estimated $45 MILLION DOLLARS
for the year 2025 for the hotel/motel program
for homeless Vermonters.
It says the program is capped at 1,100 rooms.
$45,000,000 divided by 1100 = $40,909.
Each room costs $40,909 per year?
You can buy a brand new 2025 Keystone Coleman
20 foot camper trailer that sleeps 4 people for
$13,000.
https://rv.campingworld.com/rvclass/small-camper-rvs
The advantage of camper trailers is keeping people
separated in appropriate groups.
You don’t want people with drug problems in the
same group as women and children, etc.
Now, if instead of hotel/motel rooms, the State of Vermont
buys 1,100 camper trailers which can be parked in
various towns in Vermont where they are needed,
then
1,100 times 13,000 = $14,300,000.
So, how much is saved?
$45,000,000 minus $14,300,000. = $30,700,000.
So, the State of Vermont can save $30,700,000.
by buying 1,100 camper trailers
and park them around the state where needed.
Where? Where do you park them with the
$30,700,000. saved?
Let’s look at today’s listing of
UNRESTRICTED LAND
FOR SALE IN VERMONT
https://www.landsearch.com/unrestricted/vermont
Today, there are 9 listings on this site.
(1) Windham County
57.8 Acres for $299,000.
(2) Windham County
2.19 Acres
with a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom home 1,921 Sq ft.
$349,000.
(3) Rutland County
5.47 Acres
$329,000.
(4) Windsor County
3 Acres
$`129,000.
(5) Washington County
64.6 Acres
$299,000.
(6) Lamoille County
1 Acre $75,000.
(7) Orleans County
10 Acres $68,850.
(8) Orleans County
0.9 Acre $39,000.
(9) Orleans County
10 Acres $589,000.
O.K., lets add up how many acres nine unrestricted
land properties cost today in Vermont.
We need “unrestricted land” for the non-profits to
create homeless shelters with the camper trailers.
So, the listing of nine properties today adds up to
154.96 Acres of land.
What is the total cost if non-profits can get grants
and donations to buy the whole list of ten properties?
So, that’s $2,276,850.
Now, add the $2,276,850 with the cost of the
1,100 camper trailers,
$14,300,000 + $2,276,850 = $16,576,850.
Well, seriously folks, $16,576,850
is less expensive than $45,000,000.
$45,000,000. minus $16,576,850. = $28,423,150.
Now, surely you can pay the salaries of the heads
of the non-profits and the required property insurance
for less than $28 Million dollars?
Why are people treated worse than dogs in Vermont?
Why are human beings treated worse than dogs in Vermont?
Google search Vermont dog laws:
In Vermont, leaving a dog outside in freezing temperatures without adequate shelter, food, and water is considered animal cruelty, and the Safe Outdoors Dog Act passed in 2022 protects dogs from such conditions.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Animal Cruelty:
Leaving a dog outside in freezing temperatures without adequate protection is a violation of animal welfare laws, similar to leaving them in extreme heat.
Safe Outdoors Dog Act:
This law, passed in 2022, specifically addresses the need for proper outdoor animal sheltering during inclement weather, including cold temperatures.
Adequate Shelter:
If you must keep your dog outside during cold weather, ensure they have a warm, solid shelter against wind, with a floor raised off the ground to minimize heat loss.
Food and Water:
Provide unlimited access to fresh, non-frozen water (by changing the water frequently or using a pet-safe, heated water bowl) and ensure they have access to food.
Considerations:
Certain breeds, like Huskies and Malamutes, are naturally more cold-tolerant, but it’s still crucial to assess individual needs and comfort levels.
COMPARE TO HUMAN DNA TESTS!
Do you have Swedish or Norwegian DNA?
Do you have African DNA?
Why do some people die in the cold while others
can survive?
Hazardous Weather:
No dog shall be confined outside and unattended during any period in which a hazardous weather advisory or warning has been issued by the National Weather Service for the local area or where conditions pose a serious adverse risk to the health and safety of a dog.
Reporting:
If you see a dog left outside in the cold without adequate protection, contact your local animal control agency or county sheriff’s office.
If it SNOWS again this April, does that make Governor Phil Scott a criminal?
If it SNOWS again this April, does that make Governor Phil Scott a criminal?
Are the laws regarding putting homeless people outdoors in the freezing cold too unclear?
Google search:
Yes, intentionally leaving someone outdoors in freezing temperatures in Vermont could be considered a crime, potentially falling under charges of negligence or abandonment, depending on the circumstances and the person’s vulnerability.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Neglect or Abandonment:
If someone is intentionally left outside in freezing temperatures without adequate protection or care, and they suffer harm or injury as a result, the person responsible could face charges related to neglect or abandonment.
Vulnerability:
The severity of the potential crime depends on the person’s vulnerability. For example, leaving a child or someone with a medical condition outside in freezing temperatures would be a much more serious offense than leaving an adult who is capable of protecting themselves.
Intent:
If the person was intentionally left outside to suffer, the crime could be considered more serious than if the person was left outside unintentionally or as a result of a mistake.
Vermont Law:
Vermont law addresses neglect and abandonment, and these laws could be used to prosecute cases where someone is intentionally left outside in freezing temperatures.
Duty of Care:
In some situations, individuals have a legal duty of care towards others, and failing to provide adequate protection in freezing temperatures could be a violation of that duty.
https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1868539
VT S0116
An act relating to crimes against an unborn child
Introduced 03/13/2025 In Committee
Introduced Session
2025-2026 Session
Bill Summary
This bill proposes to deem an unborn child a person for purposes of criminal offenses of this State when the unborn child suffers bodily injury or death as a result of a criminal offense.
AI Summary
This bill proposes to amend Vermont criminal law by legally defining an “unborn child” as a person for criminal offense purposes when the unborn child suffers bodily injury or death due to a criminal act. The bill addresses a historical legal inconsistency highlighted by previous Vermont court cases, where courts had differed on whether a fetus could be considered a person under criminal statutes. The proposed law would allow prosecution for crimes against an unborn child without requiring proof that the perpetrator knew the mother was pregnant or intended to harm the unborn child. Importantly, the bill includes specific protections to prevent prosecuting pregnant women for actions related to their own pregnancy, and explicitly excludes prosecution for medical treatments or abortions performed with the woman’s consent. The bill’s purpose is to protect a pregnant woman’s right to carry a child to term and to hold perpetrators of crimes against unborn children accountable. Additionally, the bill includes a provision allowing the General Assembly to intervene if the law’s constitutionality is challenged, and it would take effect immediately upon passage.
Committee Categories
Justice
Sponsors (3)
Terry Williams (R)*, Lawrence Hart (R), Steven Heffernan (R),
Last Action
Read 1st time & referred to Committee on Judiciary (on 03/13/2025)
Official Document
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2026/S.116
IMPEACH Republican Governor Phil Scott !!! IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH !!!
News sources today tell us to expect Republican Governor
Phil Scott to VETO the bill to help homeless Vermonters.
https://www.wcax.com/2025/04/03/facing-2nd-veto-senate-narrowly-approves-budget-adjustment-bill-with-hotel-motel-funding/
…”The measure — which passed 17 to 13 along party lines — includes
$1.8 million in already budgeted funds to continue the state’s hotel-motel
program through the end of June after winter emergency housing rules
expired this week, leaving upwards of 350 Vermonters without housing.”…
…”The bill passed by both chambers would make everyone kicked out
this week re-eligible for vouchers”…
….”The bill now goes back to the Governor who is expected to veto it again.”
Now, what can we do?
Ask your representatives in the
Vermont House and Vermont Senate to
IMPEACH Republican Governor Phil Scott
for “maladministration”.
THE VERMONT STATE CONSTITUTION
https://law.justia.com/constitution/vermont/
CHAPTER II. PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT
DELEGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS
IMPEACHMENT
§ 57. [Impeachments, house may order]
The House of Representatives shall have the power
to order impeachments,
which shall in all cases be by a vote of two-thirds of its members.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/constitution-of-the-state-of-vermont/
§ 58. [Liability to; Senate to try; judgment]
Every officer of State, whether judicial or executive,
shall be liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives,
either when in office or after resignation or removal
for maladministration.
The Senate shall have the sole power of trying and deciding
upon all impeachments.
When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath, or affirmation,
and no person shall be convicted, without the concurrence of two-thirds
of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment
shall not extend further than to removal from office
and disqualification to hold or enjoy any office of honor,
or profit, or trust, under this State.
But the person convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable
and subject to indictment, trial, judgment,
and punishment, according to law.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(I want to add that I was visiting with an internet friend on
twitch.tv today, he is working to fix up an old house in the state of
Michigan, and plant some trees, also; so I like watching someone
working with tools, and he has a group of people who watch him
online with his computer hooked up to a camera, and we chat
in the chat box while he works. He takes breaks from working
and chats with us and explains tools he is using. Today he
sadly explained that he has a friend in the hospital who just had
his foot amputated because he has a serious case of frostbite.
I looked at various Vermont city and town weather reports for the
next upcoming week, and there are areas of snow for several
days next week. Think about it, what is more cost effective,
saving someone from freezing or the hospital expense
and permanent disability from frostbite and losing a foot?)