Video: Is Assemblywoman Zaletel the first Alaska elected official to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance?


At first it seemed like a one-off at an Anchorage Assembly meeting. Now, it’s clear that Anchorage Assemblywoman Meg Zaletel, who represents Midtown and works as the czar of the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness, doesn’t have laryngitis. She is just not feeling the love for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Zaletel, part of the leftist leadership on the Assembly, is the only member who does not put hand over heart and at least mouth the words to the flag salute.

She does not face reelection the year, but if Zaletel becomes the Assembly chairwoman after March-April election, upon the retirement of Assembly Chair Suzanne LaFrance, she may find herself in an awkward position being the lone refusenik, unless others follow her lead.

Another instance of Assemblywoman Meg Zaletel standing in protest of the Pledge of Allegiance during a special meeting of the Assembly.

It’s Zaletel’s right as an American to refuse to recite the Pledge. Freedom of speech includes the right to not speak. But she may be the first elected official in Alaska history to stand in protest of the Pledge.

However, Zaletel would not be the first public figure in America to refuse to honor the flag. Last year, the Fargo, N.D. school board voted 7-2 to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it does not align with the district’s “diversity code” due to the fact that the Pledge includes the phrase “under God.” In New York’s Legislature in 2009, several leftist members refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Zaletel at least stands during the Pledge, and faces the flag, keeping her hands together in front of her, standing in silent protest.

The pledge was originally written about 118 years after America’s founding. It was written in 1892 by a socialist minister named Francis Bellamy. It was published in The Youth’s Companion, a children’s magazine. Bellamy hoped the pledge would be used in other countries, as well. The original version read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In the 1920, “the Flag of the United States of America” were added. At this time it read: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In 1954, the country was in the middle of the Cold War and was worried about the spread of communism. President Dwight Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words “under God,” which Congress did over the objections of Bellamy’s daughter. Today, the Pledge remains as it has been unchanged for nearly 70 years:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Some people object to the words “under God.”

Watch as Zaletel refuses to say the Pledge on March 7, 2023 at the beginning of a regular Assembly meeting:


  1. The pledge is nowhere in the constitution. Our founding fathers didn’t say it. Many of them were not believers in the bible. Would anyone today have problems with their not saying the pledge or adhering to the bible? Prolly.

    • Every so often I see things that make me pause and ask: is this remotely real, or has our public education really sunk this far?

      1-the pledge didn’t exist at the time of the founding so of course the Founders didn’t say it. They also didn’t drive cars and watch TV for the same reason.

      2-while many of the Founders were Deists instead of modern Christians, the claim they didn’t believe in the Bible makes as much sense as saying they didn’t believe in the changing of the seasons.

      Can you provide any links to support any of this? Prolly not.

      If only History was still taught in school…

      • OK, how about this fact. Deist believe in a prime mover or creator of the universe but not a personal God like theists do. Also, deists believe that religious truth should be subject to the authority of human REASON rather than divine revelation. As a result, they denied that the Bible was the revealed word of God and rejected scripture as a source of religious doctrine. This should help with your second bullet.

        Even John Adams said that the United States was in no way founded on the Christian religion. Look it up for yourself.

        • The Declaration of Independence mentions “Creator” ….. so some deity is involved. Or is that just a misprint from 1776? We are referencing a Judeo_Christian basis. As for not reciting the pledge…so be it…it’s a free country until those not wanting to recite will prevent others from.

        • Your points are like you. Irrelevant to the actual conversation and do not actually deal with issues raised.

    • Interesting. Can you share the names of the American founding fathers who were not believers in the Bible?

      • Encyclopedia Britannica offers an interesting read on the subject. Given the time period all the Founding Fathers were raised under some form of Christianity. However, during the Revolutionary period those considered to be on the Deist spectrum were:
        Ethan Allen, James Monroe, George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

        Orthodox Christians: Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot and Patrick Henry.

      • There may have been some Christians in the mix, but as far as I know, the main founders, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, etc… were all deists.

    • There was not a pledge for our founding leaders to say. They were still
      figuring out the design of a new nation. As for not being Christians, many were, and those that were not were deists, believing in a creator God, even if they were not professing Jesus Christ as Lord. Certainly none of them were Marxists. Alas, as with the absence of a pledge, no Karl Marx either. The constitution they wrote reflects the Ten Commandments, and self responsibility, care for one’s neighbor, sourced from God’s Word. If you can find an earlier source for that than the Bible, good luck.

      • If this is so then why was the Constitution purposefully written as a secular and godless document? The only time religion is mentioned in the Constitution is how it should be limited/constrained. Surely this fact hasn’t escaped you?

        • Huh? The declaration of independence is the foundational document for this nation. Without it there would be no context, as the constitution does not mention “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The constitution is a “how to” document of rules, limiting and delineating the powers and relationships of the branches of the federal government, the states and the people. Your interpretation of the first amendment as a constraint on religion is not supported by the historical context or the text itself. Government may NOT dictate a religion for the entire country, and is at the same time prohibited from curtailing the free exercise of religion by the people in any way.

      • There is an earlier source for what you mention than the Bible. The Golden Rule, for instance can be found in the analects of Confucius and Rabbi Hillel, both of which predate the New Testament. More importantly though, morality is encoded into the DNA of almost every human being. If it were not, we would not have survived as a species for the hundreds of thousands of years we existed prior to monotheism coming on the scene. The Bible didn’t give us morality because it existed prior to the Bible existing. I don’t know of any society that pre-dated the Bible that approved of murder, theft and perjory.

        • ” I don’t know of any society that pre-dated the Bible that approved of murder, theft and perjury.”
          Maybe none that predated the Bible — but we sure have one (or more) of them today!.
          And you can add the slavery, the near-complete elimination of privacy, adn wholesale tyranny to that list of things formerly not approved, now wholeheartedly embraced by our society as well.

          • Slavery and genocide are not only approved of in the Bible, they were mandated by God to his supposed chosen people.

          • I guess you missed the “pre-dated the Bible” part of my comment, which was simply a continuation of the same theme expressed in your original comment.

    • Agreed. Why should someone has to recite State-sponsored catechisms? Not sure the Founders would have approved as most of them were democratic deists and secular humanists.

    • In the days of our founding fathers we hung traitors. Spurning the constitution and the Bible and then calling for a return to the old days is a pretty self destructive opinion.

      • The Bible has nothing to do with our country as our country wasn’t founded on the Christian religion. See John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli.

        • False, we were founded by Puritans who left in mass exodus from England to escape religious persecution under King James I. We founded our nation to practice our religion out from under his thumb and it is why our declaration of independence is in large part written AT king James himself. It’s not your fault though, public schooling doesn’t teach history anymore, just white guilt and critical race theory

          • While its true some people came here to practice their faith, many also came to be free of religion altogether. The declaration is a pushback against the concept of the diving right of kings, the idea that monarchs derived their authority from God, which is a patently ridiculous belief, just like the idea that a country or its citizenry derive its rights from a creator as well. At any rate, that was the main thrust of the Declaration, and none of that is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If the Founders wanted a theocracy, then they would have inculcated that into our Constitution.

            I went through K-12 in the 70s and 80s. so I’m not a product of the current educational system. Just because my views differ from yours doesn’t mean I lack some basic form of educational background.

            I’ve always been interested in history and the founding of this country as well. There is just as much support for my viewpoint as there might be for yours. The bottom line is, we live in a country governed by a secular Constitution and actually, secularism is the only guarantee of religious freedom. If you don’t believe me, see how much religious freedom there is in theocracies like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. You want to practice your religion, then please, by all means, do so. Just leave me out of it and don’t pass laws to try and force me to live by your beliefs either and I’ll agree not to do the same.

          • Cman I give you that the divine rights of kings was always baloney and designed to keep the peasants in line. (Stalinists later used the same logic of party elitism to keep the workers in their place)
            The question that comes to mind however, if there is no creator who bestowed inalienable rights on each individual? Other humans? Government? You take life, liberty and freedom for granted, who told you that you could? Is it possible that the founders, as deists wished to assure that government could not take these rights away at a whim?

    • “The pledge is nowhere in the constitution. Our founding fathers didn’t say it……….”
      Both the pledge and the oath were not yet needed at the founding of the republic. When the American Revolutionary War was finished, Loyalists (Tories) were essentially run out of the country at the point of a bayonet or executed. Most fled to Britain and Canada. Many Tories in southern colonies fled to Florida and Caribbean Islands. Others fled west. Many of the Loyalists were forced to abandon substantial properties to American restoration of or compensation for these lost properties was a major issue during the negotiation of the Jay Treaty in 1794. An estimated 15%-20% of the 2 million whites in the colonies were Tories, and they were widely found as persona non grata.
      After the War Between the States, service in government (including the role Ms. Zalatel holds) required recitation of the oath, pledging allegiance to the constitution and constitutional law. The pledge to the flag is a ceremonial pledge for the citizenry to the flag and republic.
      Ms. Zaletel needs to be queried on the record about her inability to pledge that allegiance, because she appears to be in violation of her oath.

  2. You elected and re-elected her, Anchorage. Knowing exactly what she was.

    This isn’t on her, it on you.

    If she was the first, she won’t be the last.

    • She was elected with six figure political donations from out of state unions that were spent to fund ballot harvesting in vote by mail elections. It is simply legalized fraud.

      • Your proof? Something that stands up in court?

        Simple truth is, the GOP was outplayed. Badly. As usual.

        While the GOP was hosting a free for all initiated by Queen Sarah’s ego, the Democrats were steadily clearing the road for Mary.

        It’s really just that simple.

  3. Yep, she has the freedom to do that. But like football players kneeling for the Anthem, the lack of respectful patriotism smacks of angry unthankful treason, not freedom, and leaves a very sour taste in my opinion. Anger is contagious.

    • What ever happened to personal freedom? The first amendment allows her to do exactly what she did. Did she cause a scene? Did she interrupt the pledge? Going all the way back to when I was in school, no one forced us to say the pledge, we were asked to stand and be respectful, nothing more, nothing less.

      The kneeling idea came from Nate Boyer, a decorated green beret and NFL player, who spoke with the protestors in the NFL and told them that kneeling was more respectful than sitting during the anthem. The protesters even went out of their way to say that their actions were not to denigrate the troops, but to bring light to the systemic injustices that people have been suffering due to over zealous police.

      While I don’t agree with her politics, Zalatel was nothing but respectful when she stood and was silent during the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, nor was she angry that I could tell. Again, did she make a scene about the pledge? This seems like much ado about nothing.

      • Sigh…

        The right to do what she did is not in question, except in your commentary. The appropriateness of the action is the issue.

        By doing what she did, there is an implicit statement of disapproval of the nation which allows her to make political statements. And this was an overtly political statement.

        You have every right to walk into a synagogue and yell antisemitism remarks. You can do the same in a mosque regarding Islam. You can go to an NAACP meeting in a white bedsheet. You can walk up to a longshoreman and tell him you know his wife is a freak in bed when he’s at work.

        The question becomes, is it wise to do so? Usually, the answer is no. Often because of the consequences. The longshoreman, for example, would probably respond poorly and violently.

        Meg is many things, dumb not among them. This was intended to be seen, knowing how it would be perceived.

      • “What ever happened to personal freedom?……..”
        In her case, it took a back seat when she took the oath of office. If she is not in allegiance with the flag, the republic for which it stands, and to the constitution, she is no longer qualified for elected office. Have you already forgotten the trial of David Eastman?

  4. I am more surprised that any of the socialist on the assembly stand and recite the pledge. It also appeared that the temporary appointee to midtown was also at not holding his hand over his heart. I agree she has a right not to participate. But my objection is that she represents citizens that elected her and it is an insult to them and the community. Her failure to honor the flag that symbolizes the millions of Americans that have defended and those that have died for it shows a lack of respect and decency.

    • The pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist. Doesn’t it seem like reciting a oath to a flag is socialist behavior.

  5. It’s simple. We deport the assembly to Tyonek, rename it Anchorage, and then rename the municipality of Anchorage to East Anchorage.

  6. It is not true that the founding fathers were not religious or patriots. That is another lie spread by the ignorant socialist. If you had read the Constitution or Bill of Rights Tim you would know that. Does this ring any bells “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator withinalienable rights.”

  7. You know I feel sorry for liberals. No one will be in a sadder hopeless state than liberals cause everything we own will fall away whenever
    our beloved america collapses by our
    successive wrong decisions, the first bad decision turning away from God.

    • I’m a realist. I know the end of america is expected, and i do not look forward to it, and i hope its not in my lifetime which appears unlikely. In the present i’m thankful for old glory-that flag and how many battles it overcame and how many revivals it seen enriching me and my neighbors with everything we have.

  8. It’s hard to pledge allegiance to something you hate with all of your being. Communists melt at the sight of the Stars and Stripes. She sure does like capitalism but hates America.

  9. I watched her accuse the Bronson administration of being corrupt last night and almost spit out my drink. There is no person in Anchorage government that has done more to subvert their duty that Zalatel. She voted to direct millions to the Homeless Industrial complex, then got herself appointed head of the cabal that sucks up money, while increasing the homeless problem. Corruption is her middle name.

  10. Elvi Gray Jackson didn’t say the pledge either. She was asked about it at a candidate forum at the Egan Center and she replied that she just doesn’t do it.

  11. Has nobody even thought to ask her why? She has the right, and maybe some very good reason.

  12. Wonder if she has any grasp of the freedom this nation affords being the reason she can be elected to her position?

  13. Anchorage is the Seattle, Portland and San Francisco of the north. You Anchorage voters should be so proud…

  14. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS………”
    Is Ms. Zakatel not allied with the American republic? Didn’t Representative Eastman just stand trial for being a member if an organization which was accused of being treasonous (even though its #1 principle was the safeguarding of the nation’s constitution)? If Ms. Zalatel is in an adversarial position to the nation’s republic, how can she serve as an officer of the same? Is she serving as an ifficer of an adversarial ideology and organization? Shouldn’t she be investigated in order to determine exactly who it is she is representing?
    She took an oath before serving on the Anchorage Assembly. Her refusal to pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic appears to violate her oath. She needs to face investigation and trial for that violation.

  15. Ah, let’s cut her some slack: maybe she believes she’s a “Sovereign Citizen” like that dude from Fairbanks, Schaeffer Cox?

    • Who is truly willing to reject the description of “sovereign citizen?” If you are not a sovereign citizen then you are must be a subject of your government. In this republic, the citizens are indeed sovereign. The elected officials work for us; not the other way around. We are the sovereigns. What fool would reject that title?
      As to the pledge, what rational Christian person would pledge allegiance to a cloth symbol? That is tantamount to idol worship; an abomination to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yahweh Himself.
      The proper Christian pledge would be: “I pledge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

      • Wayne, I offered a snarky joke. You probably remember Schaefer Cox, a nutcase who used his twisted interpretation of “Sovereign Citizen” to justify his crimes (“I’m sovereign, and you’re a cop, therefore I can lob a stolen hand grenade at you….”). How’s about we just leave it at that?

        • leitch, you are implying we should stand aside and allow our common English language to be degraded as words lose the meaning they once had. For example, CS Lewis pointed out the term “gentleman” once actually described a man of landed title and certain achievement. Today, the term applies to any wino on the street. Ergo, the term has lost its specific meaning so we must therefore use more lengthy explanations to communicate. It is PC nonsense run amuck.

    • We are all sovereign citizens as i understand the meaning of it this country was founded on the principle of individual sovereignty thats lile calling people 9/11 truthers who the hell dosent want to know the truth about 9/11 and just for the record maybe you were unaware Schafeffer Cox case was a huge black spot mark for law enforcement every one should go read that case as to not wind up just like him if his case doesn’t scare you nothing will he was doing the most dangerous thing a citizen can do uniting people

    • You know…… you may be onto something here.
      Cox is in his heart of hearts an anarchist determined to blow up the nation and rebuilt it according to Cox. Our assembly has been doing much the same thing, ignoring laws, flaunting residents, harassing the mayor and lobbing one tax-grenade after another at the law-abiding, while building their “army” of homeless and non-profit supporters to take over everything and make the average citizen a serf to their kingdom.
      To Wayne:
      Yes I know we are ALL sovereign citizen, but as such we are still bound by the laws governing this country. Cox’s version of “sovereignty” was a denouncement of the mutually understood and constitutionally established definition.

  16. Do any other countries have a pledge to their flag which they say at every government event?

  17. Meg Zaletel is an ugly, hateful individual, not because of her physical appearance, but because of her internal outlook upon life, and her fraudulent base of beliefs.

    That is, she does not represent any individual save herself.

    Should she honestly care about those that she dishonestly claims to represent, she would work pro bono within support of them, rather than taking a six-figure stipend to falsely do so, whilst lining her own pocket, all the while disingenuously ‘representing’ the community she supposedly represents.

    Amongst the laughable ‘representative’ Assembly members, she stands out as the most profitable, which must draw personal envy amongst those such as Constant, who can only whine, but cannot profit from said moronic stances, or is he able to garner a cut from her undeserved gains?

    That she refuses to take the pledge, is of course her choice, as is her right to do so, as an individual.

    But is it her right to do so as a representative of those who wish her to do so?

    Afterall, as a representative, she is no longer simply an individual, but one who represents others, and should uphold the wishes of ALL her constituents, not simply the ones she holds unto her own individual belief system.

    She obviously does NOT hold allegiance unto what her constituents may or may not believe, but only unto what SHE herself believes, and that is NOT the duty of a representative.

    Once again, an ugly individual personage opposed to representation, but rather an individual profiting from her own individual gain diametrically opposed to any representation beyond her own gain.

    How sad.

    • That is a very interesting perspective, Randy, and one that I had never thought of before.
      Indeed, by refusing to say the Pledge, just who is NutMeg representing — her constituents, or herself? I think we all know the answer to that question.

  18. I think what matters in this article is the display of the sheer hatred she has for this country that she has to display it for all to see AKA virtue signaling how sad she has all the opportunities in the world to be a hero and a great example of an exceptional American but that simply is not high on her list as a public servant

  19. And this discussion right here is why this is not going to end well for anyone. I asked an old guy the other day what it would take to straighten this country back out and get us unified again, without missing a breath he said a world war and lots of spilled blood lowered his head and walked away. By the day I believe he is right. Amazing to think anyone living in our beautiful wealthy country would desire to destroy it.

  20. She always has this look of disgust and discomfort. Perhaps Dr Rachel Levine would prescribe more fiber in her diet?

    • NutMeg looks that way because, like every other radical leftist, with their twisted and perverse world view and political agenda, she has constipation of the soul.

  21. Anyone commenting on Must Read, you must read Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason”. His criticism of Christianity is literary gold. This is why so few people know much about him today. For it was his public display of his deist views and criticism of Christianity, and other religions, that made him very unpopular and stigmatized by historians for almost 200 years. To this day there a only a few statues of his likeness. Even in Philadelphia’s Thomas Paine Square, a statue of Benjamin Franklin stands instead. Amazing character. Craig Nelson has a great biography on him.

Comments are closed.