House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries has been elected the Democrats’ new leader in the 118th Congress, replacing Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who will be replaced as Speaker when Republicans take control of the House majority.
Jeffries leads the caucus to which Alaska Democrat Rep. Mary Peltola belongs. A radical who believes the 2016 presidential election and other elections that Republicans won were stolen, Jeffries will be the one giving marching orders to Alaska’s only congressional representative.
Jeffries represents the Eighth Congressional District of New York, an area that encompasses large parts of Brooklyn and a section of Queens. Serving his fifth term in the United States Congress, Rep. Jeffries is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and House Budget Committee.
Jeffries is an election denier. In 2016, he wrote on Twitter about Russian collusion with Republicans: “The more we learn about 2016 election the more ILLEGITIMATE it becomes. America deserves to know whether we have a FAKE President in the Oval Office #RussianInterference.”
Twitter, under the old leftist management, did not remove Jeffries’ account even after multiple instances of misinformation. His frequent comments on Republicans have been preserved for posterity:
Jeffries has claimed multiple elections were stolen: “Is the North Carolina congressional seat the only one stolen by rogue Republican operatives? We may need a comprehensive criminal investigation to figure that out #CleanUpCorruption,” he wrote in 2018.
He also claimed the Supreme Court justices appointed by President Donald Trump were sitting in stolen seats: “LIE (more than any administration in the history of the Republic). CHEAT (2016 election/Russian Interference. STEAL (one or two Supreme Court seats). When will Republicans put country ahead of party? #CleanUpCorruption,” he wrote in 2018.
In 2017, he challenged the legitimacy of Supreme Court Judicial nominee Neil Gorsuch: “With legitimacy of Trump’s presidential election in doubt, his lifetime appt to Supreme Court can wait FilibusterGorsuch #StopGorsuch,” he wrote.
His Twitter tirades included claims that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 elections:
“Trump betrayed America. He abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election. And undermined our national security. The cloud of illegitimacy hanging over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. grows stronger by the day.”
Jeffries in November of 2020, said of Trump, “History will never accept you as a legitimate President.”
He pushed conspiracy theories about voter suppression. In 2021, Jeffries wrote, “What kind of political party worships at the altar of voter suppression? A morally bankrupt one.”
“Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier to steal an election. We will crush voter suppression with the fierce urgency of now. Pass HR 1,” he wrote. HR1 was the bill that would have made it easier to cheat in elections.
The mainstream media has ignored his conspiracies and disinformation campaigns.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, who was under pressure from faith leaders and conservatives in Alaska to vote against the mislabeled “Respect for Marriage Act,” sent a several-page letter to ministers. In it, he says the vote to affirm the act on Tuesday was one of the most challenging votes of his career, but he feels the act protects religious liberties.
The text of his letter to faith leaders is presented below:
I am writing to provide context on the Respect for Marriage Act (the bill or RMA), whichpassed in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 61 to 36 and is currently being considered in the House. I appreciate the calls, letters, and emails many of you sent. This has been one of the most challenging votes I have taken since I took office eight years ago and your input has been critical throughout the last several weeks. My team and I have spent countless hours researching this bill, listening to your ideas on how to improve it, and working with my colleagues to do just that. As a result, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill is fundamentally more about promoting and expanding religious liberty protections than same-sex marriage.
Out of respect for you and the issues you have raised, my team and I have put together a detailed document to provide context to my vote and many provisions of this bill, particularly as they relate to religious liberties and legal protections for religious institutions that hold traditional views of marriage.
The RMA Includes Strong Additional Religious Liberty and Conscience Protections for Religious Organizations and the Millions of Americans who Believe in Traditional Marriage.While I’ve long held that marriage should be an issue left up to the states, the Supreme Court nationalized the issue in the 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges decision. Although I disagreed with Obergefell, I said then that I would respect the Court’s decision, but would also continue to fight for, respect, and defend the religious liberty of all Americans. Since that time, I’ve worked hard to keep this commitment. In the last several weeks, I have worked relentlessly to include in this bill considerable advances in much stronger religious liberty protections for millions of Americans. Additionally, I continued this fight for religious liberty protections on the Senate floor, where I was ultimately successful in forcing votes on three additional religious liberty amendments from Senators Lee, Lankford, and Rubio during debate on this bill. This was a commitment I made to several Alaskans.Because of Obergefell, same-sex marriage is taking place in every state in the country, which would continue whether this bill passed or not. This bill, as amended in the Senate, codifies and maintains the status quo under the Obergefell decision, but importantly enshrines additional religious liberty protections and racial equality protections that previously were not in federal statute and were not included in the Obergefelldecision—particularly for organizations that support traditional marriage.As amended in the Senate, the bill includes statutory changes that significantly extend religious liberty and conscience protections, including:
Affirming explicit Congressional support for traditional marriage supporters that they and their beliefs are decent and honorable, which can be cited as national policy in any future litigation cases where plaintiffs might try to wrongly equate traditional beliefs about marriage as akin to racism (See below in Section IV for further explanation of this important issue);(2)(2) “Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”
Directing courts that nothing in the bill diminishes current statutory religious liberties or conscience protections, including, of course, under the First Amendment and the important protections in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA);(6)(a) “Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.”
Protecting the rights of religious and social services organizations who believe in traditional marriage, including educational institutions, and their employees from being required to host, participate in, or accommodate in any way same-sex wedding ceremonies;(6)(b) “Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”
Protecting nonprofit religious organizations—including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion—and any employee of such an organization, from being sued for choosing not to accommodate or participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies; and“Any refusal under this subsection [(6)(b) above] to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”
Preventing the federal government from discriminating or retaliating against religious organizations that hold a traditional view of marriage by taking away any benefit, right, or status—including tax-exempt status, grants, loans, or educational accreditation, among others. (7)(a) “No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage — Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan scholarship, license or certification, accreditation, claim or defense.”
Major Faith Groups and Religious Liberty Advocates that Believe in Traditional Marriage Strongly Support the Religious Liberty and Conscience Protections in the RMA.A number of prominent religious groups that strongly support, practice, and teach traditional marriage as one of their core beliefs also strongly support the religious liberty protections in the RMA, and view such protections as significant advancements in federal law for their churches, synagogues, and members. For example, the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, Walter Kim, states that this bill “will produce the first significant bipartisan legislation in many years advancing religious freedom for all, including for those who hold traditional views on marriage.”Additionally, leadership from the Seventh Day Adventist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, AND Campaign, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, Center for Public Justice, and 1st Amendment Partnership, jointly wrote that the Senate version of the RMA “adequately protects the core religious freedom concerns raised by the [House version of the] bill, including tax-exempt status, educational funding, government grants and contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification, and accreditation. If passed, it would continue to build on the congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).”The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) also favors this bill because of the religious liberty protections it includes. CCCU institutions are sincere Christian educational institutions that adhere to Biblical values and teach that the Biblical understanding of marriage, between one man and one woman, is an essential foundation for a thriving society. CCCU President Shirley V. Hoogstra writes, “[T]his carefully crafted [bill] includes both strong religious liberty language … and non-retaliation language that ensures this legislation cannot be used by state and federal agencies to punish religious organizations for their sincerely held beliefs.” Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, and Stephanie Summers, CEO of the Center for Public Justice, wrote, “We regard adoption of the Act as the best opportunity since the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) for Congress to safeguard religious freedom with Democratic support. The amended RMA . . . add[s] to the U.S. Code new protections for religious freedom in the context of marriage equality.”Additionally, prominent religious liberty advocates also support the religious liberty protections in this bill. This includes Douglas Laycock, a prominent professor of law and religion at the University of Virginia, who has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including serving as lead counsel in six cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Laycock, along with three other First Amendment professors stated that they “believe the religious liberty protections in RMA are meaningful and important even if not comprehensive.” They emphasize that religious liberty protections have failed to become law regardless of which political party is in the majority. Their observation is correct—even under the Trump Administration, with a Republican House and Republican Senate, legislation I cosponsored similar to the Lee amendment could not get enacted into law.
Progress is Being Made on Important Religious Liberty Issues Not Addressed in the Bill.Despite support from the religious groups mentioned above, not all prominent religious organizations and faith groups support this bill—some prominent examples are the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, and Alliance Defending Freedom. These organizations and others raise a number of criticisms about the bill, the most common of which is that it does not go far enough to protect all important religious liberty issues currently under debate in our nation. This is a legitimate and understandable concern. For that reason, I pressed my Senate colleagues to ensure that amendments offered by Senators Lee, Lankford, and Rubio each received a vote on the Senate floor. I have cosponsored bills that mirror the religious liberty and conscience protections offered in these amendments. As I committed in 2015 when the Supreme Court issued the Obergefell decision, I will continue to fight for, defend, and attempt to broaden the religious liberty and conscience protections of all Americans.At the same time, this bill does not do anything to undermine religious liberty issues where there has been recent progress due to the significant number of federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, added to the federal judiciary who have a principled view of the importance of First Amendment religious liberty protections in our constitutional order. While the bill is silent, for example, as to religious protections for for-profit wedding vendors, existing law protecting wedding vendors under the First Amendment Free Exercise clause continues to be the law of the land. A prominent example of this protection is the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2018 in a 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner’s reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause.Likewise, this bill does nothing to undermine the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fulton vs. City of Philadelphia, which interpreted the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause in favor of religious liberty for foster care agencies. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision (9-0) that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The RMA Also Addresses Interracial Marriage and the Bob Jones University vs. United States Precedent that had the Potential to Threaten Religious Institutions.The bill also codifies the federal legality of interracial marriages,[1] while expressly protecting the views of religious organizations and individuals who believe in traditional marriage from being wrongly labeled as akin to racists. This is an extremely important aspect of this bill. In the aftermath of Obergefell, one of the biggest risks to religious liberties for all organizations and institutions that believe in traditional marriage is that the federal government might go after them and specifically after their tax-exempt status for their beliefs on traditional marriage.In my view, this is a very significant concern because of the precedent of the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones University vs. United States.[2] That was a case in which Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status due to its policy of prohibiting interracial marriages and interracial dating. While very few argued that the decision was incorrect, it has been feared that that case would be used as precedent to remove tax-exempt status from educational and other religious institutions that do not support same-sex marriage. Indeed, during the Supreme Court oral argument on Obergefell in 2015, President Obama’s Solicitor General stated that a religious institution losing its tax-exempt status because of its belief in traditional marriage was “going to be an issue.” This comment made seven years ago has been cause for alarm for religious institutions that believe in traditional marriage, especially because there have not been protections for religious organizations’ tax-exempt status in statute. Chief Justice Roberts also highlighted this very real concern in his dissent in Obergefell: “Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.”[3]This bill directly addresses this problem. The RMA shuts the door to any group wrongly trying to use the Bob Jones precedent to take away the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that believe and practice traditional marriage. First, this bill includes an express provision prohibiting the federal government from discriminating or retaliating against religious organizations that hold a traditional view of marriage by denying eligibility for or right to federal benefits, rights, accreditation, legal claims or defenses, or tax-exempt status.(7)(a) “No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan scholarship, license or certification, accreditation, claim or defense.”Second and importantly, this bill also expressly affirms that traditional marriage supporters and their beliefs are decent and honorable. This establishes a clear, congressionally explicit national policy that can be cited in all future cases where an opponent wrongly alleges that traditional beliefs about marriage are as unacceptable in the United States as racism or bigotry. Instead, the United States’ official statement on traditional beliefs (and other beliefs) about marriage is provided in the RMA, which states: (2)(2) “Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”
The RMA Expressly Prohibits Federal Recognition of Polygamy.There have been some concerns that the original House version of the RMA, which was flawed in many ways, would open the door for polygamy. While polygamy is illegal in every jurisdiction of the United States, the Senate version expressly addresses this issue by stating that the federal definition of marriage is between two individuals and valid in the State where lawfully entered. (5)(a) “For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”Further, the bill includes an express provision that the language of the RMA cannot be used to require or authorize federal recognition of a polygamous marriage. (7)(b) “No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals.”
State Law Sovereignty over the Definition of Marriage Remains and is Respected.As noted above, because of Obergefell, same-sex marriage is taking place in every state in the country, which would continue whether this bill passed or not. Obergefell also ensured that regardless of the definition of marriage one state may have, that state must give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages entered in other states. In the very unlikely event that Obergefell is overturned in the future, this bill would not mandate that Alaska must undertake same-sex marriages or enact a new federal right to same-sex marriage. Instead, this bill would respect state laws, like Alaska’s constitutional provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and leave states the traditional sovereignty to set their own definition of marriage. If states have traditional marriage definitions, like Alaska, they would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. If Obergefell were ever overturned, this bill would only require same-sex and interracial marriages lawfully entered in one state to be provided full faith and credit in the other states.[4]
Conclusion.
I sincerely appreciate your engagement on this and other issues of concern. As many of you know, I have been fighting to strengthen religious liberty protections in statute since I arrived in Washington, D.C. This bill has the strongest religious liberty protections for religious organizations that believe in traditional marriage since the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. I would have liked more, but sincerely believe that the protections afforded in this bill are much better for America’s faith community than if the bill had not passed—especially as it relates to the Bob Jones University concern explained above.
As noted above, in the last several weeks, my team and I have spent dozens of hours researching, listening to and meeting with Alaskans, and pressing my Senate colleagues for improvements to this bill that was received from the House completely devoid of religious liberty protections. I have fully considered and taken to heart your input, questions, concerns, and admonitions. The Alaska faith community, of which I consider myself a part, was especially gracious in speaking with me about the importance of a Biblical view of marriage. In response, I committed to ensuring the bill included the strongest religious liberty protections that could be agreed upon in order to protect the right to teach and practice these sincere religious views. That commitment included my insisting that the Lee, Lankford, and Rubio amendments received a vote when they would otherwise have not made it to the Senate floor for consideration.
Nevertheless, I realize that many in Alaska’s faith community were not supportive of this bill and my vote in support, including many from my own Catholic faith community. This is personally an uncomfortable place to be and is one of several reasons why this has been one of the most challenging and difficult votes of my Senate career. I recognize that people of good intentions can and do disagree strongly on this issue. But, in the final analysis, as a practicing Catholic and conservative, I agreed with the important conclusion of Walter Kim, the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, regarding the religious liberty protections included in this bill: “These are important, commonsense provisions that represent a significant contribution to strengthening the legal protections for those who [] believe that God designed marriage as an exclusive covenantal relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating strong families that in turn bless their community and nation. We cherish the freedom to preach, teach, and practice these core convictions, while respecting our fellow citizens who do not share these beliefs.”
[1] In Loving vs. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court held as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause Virginia’s state prohibition of interracial marriage. If Loving were somehow overturned, which is unimaginable, this bill would mandate that states recognize interracial marriage lawfully entered in other states.
[2] Bob Jones University vs United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
[3] Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 711 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
[4] This requirement mirrors the Full Faith and Credit provision in Article IV of the United States Constitution which reads: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Late Monday night, a man wearing a “Res Alaska” logo jacket entered the Alaska Buds store on Third Avenue in Bethel, carrying a duffle bag and an M16-style rifle, police said on Tuesday.
The man appeared to be uncoordinated in his movements and was possibly intoxicated. He placed the duffle bag on the counter in what appeared to be an attempt to rob the establishment, and then fired several shots, with the first few hitting the floor of the store. The man jumped over a display counter and took approximately $300 in merchandise and fled the store in an unknown direction. One employee was shot and taken to the hospital, and the alleged robber is still at large.
Bethel Police Department is actively investigating the incident and those who have helpful information regarding this incident can report it to the police at 907-543-3781. This is possibly the first armed robbery of a marijuana store in Alaska that involved an injury, although robberies and thefts at marijuana stores are on the rise, according to several sources.
Some members of the Bethel community were upset that it took so long for the police to issue a press release or a warning that there was an armed and dangerous man on the loose.
Alaska Buds was the first marijuana store in Bethel, opening in January of 2020. Its founder is Nick Miller, who chairs the Alaska Marijuana Control Board. In February of 2020, Kusko Kush opened its doors for business across the street. The city has 6,325 residents and is a commercial hub for the region.
The last major robbery in Bethel was Nov. 11, 2021, when the Alaska USA Federal Credit Union branch inside the Alaska Commercial Company store. Ezekiel Thomas, age 34, was arrested about an hour later in that incident, which did not involve a weapon.
Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson announced his budget vetoes to the expanded budget of the Anchorage Assembly.
The mayor’s 2023 budget of $583 million was delivered in October and proposed staying under the tax cap by $4.8 million, with an overall increase of about 3% from the 2022 revised budget.
The Assembly drove the budget higher with additions, passing an additional $3.6 million and bringing the spending to just $1.2 million beneath the tax cap. The Assembly ended up passing the largest budget in Anchorage history.
Bronson’s vetoed items include spending for the Brother Francis Shelter to increase its capacity to shelter homeless. The mayor says that the shelter has already said it will not be expanding.
Here are the vetoed items:
Dunbar & Quinn-Davidson Amendment #8 Alcohol Tax Omnibus – Alcohol Tax. – $150,000, Legislative, Technical assistance for Alcohol Tax grant application process. The mayor cited separation of powers issues involved with this appropriation.
$445,000, Health, Annual basis to allow for a permanent increase of single adult shelter capacity: Brother Francis Shelter. The mayor said that Brother Francis Shelter management has stated it would stick with its 120-person capacity and therefore would not be able to increase shelter services.
Dunbar & Quinn-Davidson Amendment #8 GG Omnibus – General Government: $730,000, Health, Annual basis to allow for a permanent increase of single adult shelter capacity: Brother Francis Shelter. The mayor said Brother Francis Shelter has said it has a 120-person capacity and will not be expanding.
$44,072, Legislative, Security contract for Assembly. The mayor wrote: “This amendment identifies $65,000 for security contract for assembly, however, pursuant to the terms of the current contract with Securitas, the annual cost for security at assembly meetings is $20,928 of which the Maintenance & Operations department currently pays. Therefore I am reducing the amendment from $65,000 to $20,928 a difference of $44072 which is over and above the amount necessary to pay the cost of security for assembly meetings.”
($730,000), Health, Non labor budget for homelessness. The mayor wrote: “While I support the efforts of the Brother Francis Shelter and the work, they provide to compassionately address those individuals experiencing homelessness, Brother Francis Shelter will not be able to comply with the terms as stated in this amendment. The organization has expressly stated that they are committed to sticking to their 120-client capacity for the foreseeable future.”
($65,000), Maintenance & Operations, Reduce security contract funds. The mayor stated that “the current contract with Securitas, the annual cost for security at assembly meetings is $20,928, of which the Maintenance & Operations department currently pays. Therefore, I am reducing the amendment from $65,000 to $20,928, which is over and above the amount necessary to pay the cost of security for assembly meetings.”
The budget is not all of the spending by the city. There is additional spending that gets around the tax cap by the use of bonds and spending items that the voters approve during elections. If voters approve a capital budget expenditure, the operations for that expenditure are not included in the tax cap.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and another leader of the Oath Keepers organization were found guilty of seditious conspiracy for a plot to foment political violence at the U.S. Capitol and prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election of President Joe Biden.
A jury of seven men and five women found Rhodes and Florida Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs guilty of conspiracy to use force to prevent the lawful transition of power.
The case has an impact on the election of Rep. David Eastman of Wasilla. A judge has declared that his reelection cannot be certified until he faces charges about his membership in the Oath Keepers and whether that membership disqualifies him from serving as a legislature, due to the “disloyalty clause” of the Alaska Constitution. The election was to be certified today, but Eastman’s trial before the judge does not start until Dec. 12.
The U.S. Justice Department wrote:
Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, and Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida chapter of the organization, were found guilty by a jury today of seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Their actions disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.
Three additional defendants, who were leaders and associates of the organization – Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, and Thomas Caldwell – were found guilty of related felony charges. The verdict followed an eight-week trial and three days of deliberations. No sentencing date was set.
“Today the jury returned a verdict convicting all defendants of criminal conduct, including two Oath Keepers leaders for seditious conspiracy against the United States,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The Justice Department is committed to holding accountable those criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy on January 6, 2021. The prosecutors and agents on this case worked tirelessly, with extraordinary skill, and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice.”
“As this case shows, breaking the law in an attempt to undermine the functioning of American democracy will not be tolerated,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “The FBI will always uphold the rights of all citizens who peacefully engage in First Amendment protected activities, but we and our partners will continue to hold accountable those who engaged in illegal acts regarding the January 6, 2021, siege on the U.S. Capitol.”
“This case reaffirms the strength of our democracy and the institutions that protect and preserve it, including our criminal justice system,” said U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves for the District of Columbia. “Over a period of many weeks, a fair and impartial jury heard evidence in a search for the truth of the conduct of these defendants before, during, and after the events of Jan. 6, 2021.”
“Democracy depends on the peaceful transfer of power. By attempting to block the certification of the 2020 presidential election results, the defendants flouted and trampled the rule of law,” said Assistant Director in Charge Steven M. D’Antuono of the FBI Washington Field Office. “This case shows that force and violence are no match for our country’s justice system.”
Rhodes, 57, of Granbury, Texas, also was found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding and tampering with documents and proceedings. Meggs, 53, of Dunnellon, Florida, also was found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties, and tampering with documents or proceedings.
Harrelson, 42, of Titusville, Florida, was found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties, and tampering with documents or proceedings. Watkins, 40, of Woodstock, Ohio, was found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, interfering with law enforcement officers during a civil disorder, conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties, and tampering with documents or proceedings. Caldwell, 68, of Berryville, Virginia, was found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, and tampering with documents or proceedings.
According to the government’s evidence, the Oath Keepers are a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias. Following the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, Rhodes, Meggs, and others began plotting to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power. Beginning in late December 2020, via encrypted and private communications applications, Rhodes, Meggs, Harrelson, Watkins, Caldwell, and others coordinated and planned to travel to Washington, D.C., on or around Jan. 6, 2021, the date of the certification of the electoral college vote.
The defendants also, collectively, employed a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment – to the Capitol grounds; breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent, hinder, and delay the certification of the electoral college vote; using force against law enforcement officers while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; continuing to plot, after Jan. 6, 2021, to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and using websites, social media, text messaging and encrypted messaging applications to communicate with each other and others.
On Jan. 6, 2021, a large crowd began to gather outside the Capitol perimeter as the Joint Session of Congress got under way at 1 p.m. Crowd members eventually forced their way through, up, and over U.S. Capitol Police barricades and advanced to the building’s exterior façade. Shortly after 2 p.m., crowd members forced entry into the Capitol by breaking windows, ramming open doors, and assaulting Capitol police and other law enforcement officers. At about this time, according to the government’s evidence, Rhodes entered the restricted area of the Capitol grounds and directed his followers to meet him at the Capitol.
At approximately 2:30 p.m., according to the government’s evidence, Meggs, Harrelson, and Watkins, along with other Oath Keepers and affiliates – many wearing paramilitary clothing and patches with the Oath Keepers name, logo, and insignia – marched in a “stack” formation up the east steps of the Capitol, joined a mob, and made their way into the Capitol. Rhodes and Caldwell remained outside the Capitol, where they coordinated activities.
While certain Oath Keepers members and affiliates breached the Capitol grounds and building, others remained stationed just outside of the city in quick reaction force (QRF) teams. According to the government’s evidence, the QRF teams were prepared to rapidly transport firearms and other weapons into Washington, D.C., in support of operations aimed at using force to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power.
Rhodes was arrested on Jan. 13, 2022, in Texas. Meggs was arrested on Feb. 17, 2021, in Florida. Harrelson was arrested on March 10, 2021, in Florida. Watkins was arrested on Jan. 18, 2021, in Ohio. Caldwell was arrested on Jan. 19, 2021, in Virginia.
The charges of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and tampering with documents or proceedings each carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The charge of conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties carries a statutory maximum of six years in prison. The charge of interfering with law enforcement officers during a civil disorder carries a statutory maximum of five years in prison. All of the charges also carry potential financial penalties. Each defendant was convicted of at least one offense that carries a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. The Court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The case is being investigated by the FBI Washington Field Office with valuable assistance provided by numerous FBI offices throughout the country, including the Dallas, Cincinnati, Tampa, Jacksonville, and Richmond Field Offices.
This case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice’s National Security and Criminal Divisions. Valuable assistance was provided by numerous U.S. Attorney’s Offices throughout the country.
In the 22 months since Jan. 6, 2021, over 900 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including over 275 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing.
The controversial “Respect for Marriage Act,” which is the Democrats’ bill to enshrine gay marriage at the federal level, has passed the Senate.
The yes votes included both Republican senators from Alaska — Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan.
Sullivan had worked to get freedom-protecting amendments to the floor for a vote but they failed.
By a vote of 48-49, the Senate did not adopt the Sen. Mike Lee amendment; 60 aye votes were needed. Voting against the amendment was Sen. Susan Collins; Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, voted aye.
By a vote of 45-52, the Senate did not adopt the Sen. James Lankford amendment. Republicans voting against the amendment were Sens. Collins, Murkowski, and Rob Portman.
By a vote of 45-52, the Senate did not adopt the Sen. Marco Rubio amendment. Sens. Collins, Murkowski and Portman voted against that amendment.
The final bill passed 61-36, with the help of Republicans Roy Blunt, Missouri; Richard Burr, North Carolina; Shelley Capito, West Virginia; Susan Collins, Maine; Joni Ernst, Iowa; Cynthia Lummis, Wyoming; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; Rob Portman, Ohio; Mitt Romney, Utah; Dan Sullivan, Alaska; Thom Tillis, North Carolina; and Todd Young, Indiana.
They were the same Republicans who voted to advance the bill to the floor on Monday.
The bill, which now goes back to the House for approval, repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, and forces those “acting under color of state law” to recognize same-sex marriages. It makes same-sex marriages officially sanctioned by the federal government.
Supporters argue that the bill protects religious rights and freedom. But religious leaders across the country, including Catholic Church leaders, such as United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, warned that the bill puts people of faith in the crosshairs. Both Murkowski and Sullivan are Catholics.
Murkowski issued a statement about her vote:
“Today, I voted to begin debate on a bipartisan compromise of the Respect for Marriage Act. This bill protects the marriage of countless couples across the country. States will continue to set their own definitions of marriage, the federal government will be required to recognize all lawful marriages, and no out-of-state marriages will be able to be denied on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. I have long supported marriage equality and believe all lawful marriages deserve respect. I thank my colleagues who improved the bill’s protections for religious liberty and continued prohibitions on polygamy, allowing it to move forward this week. All Americans deserve dignity, respect, and equal protection under the law.”
Sen. Sullivan issued a statement:
“While I’ve long held that marriage should be an issue left up to the states, the Supreme Court nationalized the issue in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Although I disagreed with Obergefell, I said then I would respect the Court’s decision and also continue to fight for, respect, and defend the religious liberty of all Americans.
“Even with a Republican president and Republican majorities in the House and Senate, we were unable to codify any substantive religious liberty protections into law—until today. The protections included in the Respect for Marriage Act are vital because the Supreme Court in Obergefellchanged the law of the land on marriage in America, but did not also include robust religious liberty protections for religious organizations and the millions of Americans who believe in, preach, and practice traditional marriage.
“I worked relentlessly to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act codifies several religious liberty protections into law, including several protections for churches and non-profit Christian universities that hold traditional views of marriage. While the final product does not include every religious liberty protection I voted to include, it is my sincere judgment that the bill we passed in the Senate today—unlike the House bill—is much more about promoting and expanding religious liberty protections than same-sex marriage.
“This bill has the strongest religious liberty protections for religious organizations that believe in traditional marriage since the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. For this reason, many prominent religious groups that believe in traditional marriage, like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supported this bill and its strong religious liberty protections.”
Sen. Collins also issued a statement:
“Tonight, the Senate took a historic step to help prevent discrimination, promote equality and protect the rights of all Americans by passing the Respect for Marriage Act that @SenatorBaldwin and I authored. Our bill would help ensure everyone is treated with respect and dignity.” Collins made no mention of protection for religious liberties.
The vote had been postponed until after the elections, but is also on a fast-track for the House of Representatives to vote on the Senate changes to the bill before sending it to President Joe Biden for signature. The House, which is flipping to Republican control in January, is sure to act quickly this week.
A major fire at the one store in Stebbins, Alaska on Monday has left one third of that western Alaska community without power, and a community without a store or fuel, as winter sets in on isolated St. Michael’s Island on Norton Sound.
The village of Stebbins is eight miles north of the village of St. Michael’s, and 120 miles southeast of Nome. It is a Yup’ik Eskimo village of about 625 people, with a commercial fishing and subsistence way of life. The store is completely destroyed.
There is no fire department in Stebbins, and the fire spread to a nearby fuel company, which also caught fire. There was no one inside the building and no one was injured in the blaze, which is still smoldering at the time of this story’s publication.
The community is converting the laundromat into a temporary store and groceries and other supplies are waiting in Nome and Unalakleet for weather, which is said to be freezing rain, Must Read Alaska learned on Tuesday. A power crew is also standing by in Nome to get into Stebbins to restore the power.
Stebbins was recently hit hard by a September storm that sent up to eight feet of water through the community and left several families displaced. That super-storm hit the coastal communities all the way to Nome. The storm took out all the subsistence fishing gear, fish racks, and other supplies that subsistence Alaskans depend on. Nonprofits and governments have been providing aid to the village to help families who were displaced or whose fishing gear was destroyed.
There is no firewood in the area, because the ecology of the area supports no real trees. Gov. Mike Dunleavy said the Division of Homeland Security’s Emergency Operations Center and non-profit groups are working together to assess and address the situation, and coordinate an ongoing response.
When a plane can get a weather clearance to fly, supplies will be flown to St. Michaels, where they will be trucked to Stebbins.
The world’s most active volcano, Mauna Loa, began erupting Sunday on the Big Island of Hawaii, sending ash high into the atmosphere and creating spectacular sunsets. It is the first eruption of the volcano since 1984 and it has disrupted some air travel, with ash as high as 45,000 feet, and an ash plume heading in the direction of Maui.
Such volcanic events can affect travel and conditions can change quickly; Alaskans heading to the Big Island should check with their airlines and destination hosts.
Hawaii’s Department of Transportation issued a travel advisory Monday, warning passengers of flight disruptions at Hilo International Airport and Ellison Onizuka Kona International Airport at Keahole. Southwest Airlines canceled nine flights from Hilo over several hours on Monday. Hawaiian Airlines is issuing volcano travel waivers for those who had tickets to and from the Big Island through Dec. 4. The airline said, “Upon rebooking a new flight, no change fees will be charged, but a fare difference may apply.”
Kilauea has also erupted on the Big Island but has been regularly burbling since Sept. 29, 2021, when it exploded, causing damage to several structures, including total loss of the Wahaula Visitor Center, the Royal Gardens community center, Mauna Kea Congregational Church, Puna Canoe Club halau, and the Kalapana Drive-In. The losses from that eruption were over $60 million. But for now, the Kilauea eruption is confined to the summit lava lake.
The National Weather Service issued an ash fall advisory for all districts of Hawaii, but has since cancelled it. The lava flows are not presently a threat to communities or private properties on the island, according to the U.S. Geological Survey and Hawaii Volcano Observatory.
Mauna Loa is 13,678 feet above sea level (compare that to Alaska’s Mount Denali, 20,310 feet above sea level); the heat from the explosion can be seen from satellites.
For visitors heading to the island, Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park remains partially open, but the Mauna Loa Road is closed to vehicles. The summit, cabins, and many higher elevations had already been closed since the volcano became more active in October. Mauna Loa Observatory Road, outside of the park, is also closed, and the lava crossed the road Monday night.
On Monday, an earthquake also was felt on the Big Island, with a magnitude of 4.2. It’s unclear if it was related to the volcanic eruptions, but the epicenter was near Pahala, about 20 miles from Mauna Loa.
The Federal Aviation Administration notified aviators of a Temporary Flight Restriction within a five-mile radius around Mauna Loa summit, a restriction extended until Dec. 5.
Are you on the Big Island? Put your observations in the comment section below.
Alaska’s 2022 general election saw a modest turnout of voters: Just 266,573 of Alaska’s 601,795 registered voters cast ballots, a 44.30% turnout.
Although Alaska’s voter rolls are oversubscribed, the final participation number for this year still ends up with 95,000 fewer ballots than were voted two years ago in the general election.
In the 2020 election, there was a presidency at stake, which typically brings out more voters. Some 361,400 of the then-595,647 registered Alaska voters cast ballots, or 60.67%. Also that year, the Division of Elections mailed ballots out to all Alaska senior citizen voters to help them avoid going to a polling place where they might contract Covid, a virus that has proven particularly hazardous to their age group.
The mailed-out ballots in 2020 may account, in part, for why 26% fewer voters participated in the election this year. Ballots were not automatically mailed; voters had to request absentee ballots, as they had before the Covid pandemic.
Rolling back to the last midterm election in 2018, Alaska had a nearly 50% turnout. About 285,000 voters cast ballots out of the 571,851 registered voters.
This year’s turnout was 6% smaller than in 2018 in actual numbers.
Were some voters turned off by the ranked-choice method, by the candidates, or by the general nastiness of politics in these times? In a state that has removed nearly all barriers to voting, with automatic registration now the law with Permanent Fund dividend applications and drivers license registration, and with early voting available three weeks prior to election day, voting has never been easier.
Yet, in a “no excuse” state, the turnout hasn’t blossomed either in raw numbers or percentage of registered voters.
In 2022, voters cast the most votes in the governor’s race: 263,296 voters chose a candidate in that contest. Mike Dunleavy and Nancy Dahlstrom received 132,392 votes, or 50.28% of the votes cast in the governor’s race. They won outright, without having to go through the ranked-choice voting machine.
Congresswoman Mary Peltola was the next top vote getter on Nov. 8. In the first round of counting (before candidates were eliminated and votes redistributed), Peltola received 128,329 votes.
Peltola’s voters (those who ranked her first) were far fewer than those who voted for Congressman Don Young in 2020, when he won with 192,126 total votes, over 50%. The final number for Peltola — with ranked-choice voting calculated — was 136,893, or 55% of the votes cast.
Even with adding in the second and third choices of voters who did not pick Peltola first, but who ranked her, she came up 55,233 votes short of what Congressman Young received in his final election.
But Peltola did better in every single House districts than presidential candidate Joe Biden did two years ago. Peltola, a Democrat, did 6% better this year in the Mat-Su Valley than Biden did in 2020. She also did 6% better than Biden did in Fairbanks North Star Borough and Ketchikan. In Juneau, Peltola did 8% better than Biden did two years ago. In Anchorage, she did 8% better than Biden.
The lowest turnout in the state this year was Senate Seat A in Southeast, (Sen. Bert Stedman), with a 30% turnout; Senate P in Fairbanks, (Sen.Scott Kawasaki) with a 33% turnout, followed by Senate Seat S in the Bethel area (Sen. Lyman Hoffman). Only 34.18% of voters in that district voted.
Highest turnout in the state was Anchorage’s Senate Seat E, (Sen.-elect Cathy Giessel), 55.06%, followed by Juneau’s Senate Seat B (Sen. Jesse Kiehl) 51.53%, and Eagle River’s Senate Seat L (Sen.-elect Kelly Merrick), 50.39%.
On Tuesday, Nov. 29, the 2022 election is set to be certified by the Division of Elections.
