Florida Mayor Tells Police, ‘I Didn’t Know We Were Serving Pig Tonight’

The Stuart Mayor Eula Clarke insulted a police officer at a store.Residents in the south Florida town of Stuart are not happy with Mayor Eula Clarke after she threw an open insult at an officer in their town.

The insult came from Mayor Eula Clarke while inside of a grocery store.  Mayor Clarke reportedly said, “What are we serving, pig today?,” when she entered the store and saw the officer.  After the Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association got involved, she issued an apology in what she called an “unfortunate incident.”

According to John Kazanjian, the president of the local Police Benevolent Association, a Stuart police officer was inside Taylor’s grocery store on January 11th when the Mayor, Eula Clarke walked in.  The officer then left the store, very upset by the verbal insult made by the mayor of the town he was hired to protect.

Clarke has since come under sharp scrutiny for the incident.  She embarrassingly tried to avoid questions on whether it actually happened during a recent interview with WPTV.

When a local reporter tried to interview Clarke about the incident, she begun by trying to skirt the details.  “So what happened on January the 11 involving a Stuart police officer?,” he asked.

“Andrew, I told you I want to make a short statement to the public,” she said.

He tries again by asking her, “Did you make a reference to a pig in reference to a Stuart police officer?”

“Again, I’m telling you that I support law enforcement,” she replied.  She scrambled to dodge the direct questions but later backtracked and said, “It happened. That was something that happened. It’s done with. I want to move on. I want the officers to work for our community. I want them to believe in what I do as mayor. To believe in what they do for their jobs. I just want to make sure that they know I have their backs,” she said.

read more:

https://bluelivesmatter.blue/stuart-mayor-eula-clarke-police-pig/

Contact Information for the 'Mayor': (they have blocked it on the website, but the internet is forever! Thank You, Wayback Machine!)

Contacts

Contact

Vice Mayor

121 SW Flagler Ave Stuart FL 34994
Here's a link to a page that let's you send her an email:
And, the phone number:
 772.288.5300
Group email all the County Commissioners:

Views: 2961

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I stand corrected.  It seems that anyone can say any offensive thing to another and still be just expressing their right to Free Speech.

I went back and looked up "Hate Speech Rulings" and have included them here.  You will be shocked.

As follows:

<iframe src="//www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-TD9V2S" height="0" width="0" style="display:none;visibility:hidden"></iframe>

Hate Speech Cases

By Tom Head

Civil Liberties Expert

By Tom Head

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued six major landmark rulings on hate speech law since 1949.

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)

Fr. Arthur Terminiello did for the Archdiocese of Chicago what mononucleosis did for kissing booths. A raging antisemite and right-wing lunatic, he gave a speech in Chicago that prompted protestors outdoors to riot. The city of Chicago arrested him under a law banning riotous speech, but the Supreme Court overturned his conviction.

[F]reedom of speech...," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the 5-4 majority, is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

No organization has been more aggressively or justifiably pursued on grounds of hate speech than the Ku Klux Klan. But the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned in a ruling that has protected radicals of all political persuasions ever since. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice William Brennan argued that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)

When the National Socialist Party of America was declined a permit to speak in Chicago, the organizers turned to the small, ethnically Jewish town of Skokie—where 1/6th of the Jewish population was made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. County authorities attempted to block the Nazi march, but their efforts were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a terse ruling. After the ruling, the city of Chicago granted the Nazis three permits to march; the Nazis, in turn, decided to cancel their plans to march in Skokie.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)

After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad.

Virginia v. Black (2003)

11 years after the St. Paul case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of cross-burning after three people were arrested separately for violating a Virginia ban. In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

Westboro Baptist Church has made a career out of being reprehensible. The organization, which came to national prominence by gleefully picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, later moved on to celebrating the 9/11 attacks and picketing military funerals. The family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq in 2006, sued Westboro—and its leader, Fred Phelps—for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In an 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Westboro's right to picket. While acknowledging that Westboro's "contribution to public discourse may be negligible," Chief Justice John Roberts's ruling rested in existing U.S. hate speech precedent: "Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were."

As much as it may seem despicable to you and me, the constitution NOR ANY OTHER BODY OF LAW "protects" people from being offended.

Personally, I think that everyone should be left alone to say what they please without interference from "the law" (that would be SCOTUS, legislatures, city councils, and in fact everyone on the planet except for each person's church assembly).  

The concept of "hate speech" is solely the responsibility of church and family discipline.

IOW, if one does not like what is being said, that one is not required to listen; just as if one does not like a logo or saying on a T-Shirt or bumper sticker, don't look at it!

If one does not approve of a TV program, don't watch it. If one really, really disapproves of that program, organize a protest to boycott the sponsors. remember, cash talks and it talks very loudly. 

There is nothing in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution that says they have lifetime appointments. That is just one more lie they have been telling us, along with the Supremecy of the SCOTUS.

It says  "....The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." Art. 2 gives the House the right to begin impeachment and the Senate the duty to try all impeachments. Judges MAY and SHOULD be impeached constitutionally.

Good behaviour is defined by Madison in Federalist #78:

"In a monarchy [the good behavior standard] is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body....[I]t is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." [existing]

John Pickering, in 1804, was impeached and removed from the bench for "free and intemperate use of intoxicating liquors" leading to "high Misdemeanours".

The Dickinson amendment would have added the removal by the POTUS after recommendations by both houses of Congress, but was voted down. 1787.

Impeachment of a judge requires a lower standard than impeachment of a President, according to Heritage.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-...

This is so typical of the ugly racist cop hating Black left. They say something flat out stupid thinking they won't get caught. When they do they either backtrack or issue a half bass (without the b) "apology." Just last year my former hometown of Portsmouth VA just got rid of their racist idiot cop hating mayor Kenny Wright. That Jabba The Hutt lookalike was just like this moron so hopefully the good people of Stuart will get rid of her like they did old fathead Wright. We can thank the "transformative" 8 years of the Obamanation for the cop hating climate that we live in now. Since we have a new and better president racist civil servants like Eula must be dealt with. No apologies and no exceptions.

I received this email today from one of the Commissioners.

Here is my 'in-your-face" letter to all of them:

FIRE THIS SOW.
She is UNFIT to lead, period. She is a flaming racist and is the epitome of what racism is. The entire damrat party is nothing but criminals, communists and racists, and it is time you people find your moral compass. It might be under your feet.

Police PROTECT. YOU. 
Wake the hell up.

Image result for crowd cheering presenter media animation

:o)) One for our side!

I am sure she has 911 on speed dial on all of her cell phones.

Here is the 2nd response to my tell-off to them. She will be removed.

-------------

Thank you for contacting me regarding the statement made by Eula Clarke insulting one of the City of Stuart's Police Officers. I found these words to be offensive, insensitive and lacking judgment. Moreover these words where a divisive nature. There is no place for statements of this type here in Stuart, Florida.

In the last few days I have received hundreds of emails on this matter. So please forgive me if it has taken a few days to get back to you.

It is my opinion Eula Clarke should not only step down as Mayor she should resign from her position as a City Commissioner.

During a Commission meeting on Monday January 30, I asked Mayor Clarke to Resign her seat on the City Commission. After I asked the City Attorney to read Stuart's Policy on Work Place Harassment  I also asked for a Human Resources investigation.

On Wednesday, February 1, at 5:00 pm we will have a Special Meeting of the Stuart City Commission for the purpose of Selecting a new Mayor. We will also discuss conducting a Human Resources Investigation.

Many of the emails I have received are asking the City Commission to remove Eula Clarke from office. Only the Governor can remove an elected official from office. Failing that the citizens of Stuart request a Recall Election if enough petitions are signed.

In closing I want to reaffirm my support of the Stuart Police Department and our First Responders who put their lives at risk everyday on the job.

Thank you,

Troy A. McDonald
Stuart City Commissioner

GREAT NEWS!!!   Y'all are gonna' LOVE this....

 


BREAKING: Mayor Who Made Sickening Pig Comment Resigns, Now Under Investigation


The mayor of a small town in Florida drew intense criticism for allegedly making a derogatory comment toward a police officer while shopping in a grocery store in mid-January, referring to the officer as a “pig.”

According to The Daily Caller, Eula Clarke is now the former mayor of Stuart, Florida, having resigned her post amid the controversy over her comment.

On Jan. 11, Clarke allegedly quipped, “I didn’t know we were serving pig tonight,” while walking past a Stuart police officer who was also in the store.

“Unfortunately, I made a mistake. We all make mistakes and I am truly and humbly sorry,” Clarke said in a prepared statement before announcing her resignation. Despite relinquishing the mayoralty, she will retain her position on the city commission, at least for now.

That may not last for long, though, as WPTV reported that the city commission voted in favor of hiring an independent investigator to look into the matter and determine whether Clarke’s remark violated any city policies or if she had a history of making derogatory comments toward police officers or other city employees.

As for Clarke’s apology, she seemed to couch it it terms of an excuse that she wasn’t even referring to the officer but merely talking about her dinner plans for the evening, an excuse that many found difficult to accept.

“You keep on bringing up the meat products. Is it that you said it or you didn’t say it? I mean, we’re all confused,” said Sgt. John Kazanjian, president of the Police Benevolent Association, who attended the city commission hearing along with several dozen other residents.

While about 50 residents spoke in Clarke’s defense and asked for compassion for her, city attorney Mike Mortell revealed that the commission had received at least 700 emailed complaints about Clarke’s comment, prompting the vote on an investigation.

The Palm Beach Post reported that Clarke had met with and apologized to the officer she had insulted, which Kazanjian deemed a good “first step.” He nevertheless called for Clarke also to meet with and apologize to the town’s entire police force.

“I want to move on. I want the officers to work for our community,” Clarke said, expressing an openness to the idea. “I want them to believe in what I do as mayor. To believe in what they do for their jobs. I just want to make sure that they know I have their backs.”

However, a statement released by the police union made clear its expectation that Clarke be formally censured for the insulting remark, saying, “Comments such as the one by the mayor do nothing to improve (relations between police and citizens).”

“In fact, they only counteract the great strides made by men and women of the City of Stuart Police Department throughout the community,” the statement added.

The investigation could take up to 30 days to complete, and if it concludes that Clarke was malicious in her intent or has a history of making similar remarks, she could end up losing her commission seat.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think should happen to this former Florida mayor.

http://conservativetribune.com/mayor-pig-comment-cop-justice/?utm_s...

They're going to see if what she said violated any policies?  WHO CARES?  If it doesn't, it's because no one even dreamed of a need to mention it!  If nothing else, it shows her attitude, which does NOT go well in the Mayor's office in ANY town.  I don't know what she will do next, but it had better NOT be in that town!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Democrat Disaster! 53% Of Black Voters, 60% Of Other Minorities Say Liberal Media Trying To Help Democrats Impeach Trump

Thanks to President Donald Trump ALL Americans now know the mainstream fake-news media is an extension of the Democrat Party.

In a recent poll a majority of black voters and minority voters say the media is trying to help Democrats impeach President Trump.

And half of FOX News too, by the way.

CNS News reported:

Both black voters and other minority voters are more convinced than white voters that most reporters are trying to help impeach President Donald Trump, rather than report the news fairly – with a majority of each of the three groups holding that view – a new Rasmussen Reports survey reveals.

In the national voter survey, conducted November 12-13, 53% of all voters said most reporters are trying to help impeach Trump:

“When they write or talk about the impeachment effort, are most reporters trying to help impeach President Trump or block his impeachment? Or are most reporters simply interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner?”:

“Help impeach President Trump”: 53%
“Block his impeachment”: 8%
Report “news in an unbiased an unbiased manner”: 32%

But, 53% of black voters and 60% of other minorities, compared to 51% of whites, said reporters are trying to get Trump rather than report the news fairly.

Tucker: 'Star' witnesses couldn't point to any high-crimes

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service