Wednesday, March 24, 2010


Corrector readers that still bother to get the Havre Daily “news” may have noticed yet another insular letter to the editor from William Thackery, now calling himself a member of the Democrat Central Committee instead of his usual “Senior professor emeritus, MSU-Northern Havre”, in which he was belly-aching about alleged political speeches which were being made in Havre churches by Representative Wendy Warburton. Not unlike Professor Thackery’s former college classes, his letter is full of half-truths, innuendos, and off topic left-wing rhetoric. Thackery’s letter to the editor that ran in the HDN is posted below as it ran, complete with the poor grammar and misspellings that only the professor himself could do.

Wendy, a church is no place for a political speech
Open letter to Rep. Wendy Warburton, Republican candidate for the Legislature from District 34 in Havre and Hill and Blaine counties. I enjoyed your speech to the congregation at Fifth Avenue Christian Church as much as the other people who were there awaiting a spiritual message. I'm sorry to say, however, that your message was not spiritual, despite your spirited delivery. After all, you had filed for the House of Representatives once again, just the week before your campaign speech in church. I think you must know as well as I do, a political campaign speech does not belong in church on Sunday morning, delivered as an alleged sermon.

I checked with church members of both political parties, and I assure you both were upset by your antics. I also checked with the Federal Election Code, by which all political campaigns are run. You risked the "tax-exempt status" of this church as well as other churches in the community where you apparently delivered the same campaign speech. I might have ignored your conduct, but now you have a highly qualified Democratic opponent, Dana Sapp Seidel. Your opponent assured me thatshe could not talk politics with me in her ofice, where she is employed in a public service position.

Wendy, your opponent knows more of the law and fair campaign practices already than you do, and she did not serve a term in the Legislature as you did. She does not have other big advantages, as you do, since you attended Liberty University, Jerry Falwell's campus. Wendy, your indiscrete carelessness with law means you do not deserve a second term.

William Thackery, member Hill County Democratic Central Committee

The Corrector received several e-mails last night after the letter to the editor appeared asking us to do a post to “CORRECT” some misleading lies the good professor scribbled in his letter to the editor. First, Representative Warburton did not make a political speech. She in fact was invited by various churches to come and speak as to the “personhood amendment” and to talk about a group of Montana citizens that are gathering signatures for an amendment to be placed on the ballot this November. Pro-Life members of each of the churches visited are involved with gathering these signatures which were also being collected in each respective church on the Sunday’s when Representative Warburton spoke. The following link explaining the personhood amendment was sent to us by a reader and has been reprinted below.

What is Personhood? Why a Personhood Movement? What will a Personhood Amendment do?
• Every human being, from the beginning of their biological development, deserves equal protection under the law. This is the principle of personhood. That human life begins at conception is based on science, not philosophy, political ideology or theology. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade removed all legal protection from the unborn.
• Throughout modern history, advancement of civil rights has in every case been because of emphatically demonstrating the personhood of the victim. During the Roe v Wade hearing, it was admitted that if the personhood of the unborn was established abortion would have no defense.
• Personhood removes the politically charged rhetoric of the debate and replaces it with the commonsense principle that the right to life begins at each human being's biological beginning. It is a concept easy to grasp and embrace, gets to the core of the abortion tragedy and is pivotal to overturning Roe v Wade.

Why is Establishment of Personhood Critical in Montana?
• Did you know that in Montana right now there are absolutely no state restrictions on abortion, up to the moment of labor? Did you know that parents in Montana have absolutely no right to know if someone takes their teenaged daughter to get an abortion? Why? Because the courts have stretched the privacy provision of the Montana Constitution beyond all common sense in order to strike down the pro-life laws that the elected legislature of the State of Montana has enacted in the past. Parental notification was even upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, but then struck down by a lower court because of Montana's flawed Constitution which offers no protection for the unborn. The Montana Constitution must be amended to recognize that unborn babies are people, too, and therefore, they have rights and deserve protection. Legal protection based on personhood also applies to the elderly and disabled, and their need for protection is escalating as our culture further devalues human life.

The personhood movement is gaining momentum nationwide. Personhood Montana seeks an amendment to the Montana Constitution stating that personhood begins at conception. It is written in the context of due process in Article II section 17: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If we get close to 50,000 signatures, you will see the following on the November 2010 ballot:

[] FOR amending the Montana Constitution’s due process section to define “person” to include every human being from the beginning of the human being’s biological development.
[] AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution’s due process section to define “person” to include every
Judging by the response the Corrector has received from this letter it is apparent that Bill Thackery is again trying to pull the wool over the HDN reader’s eyes. Thackery went on to say that he “checked with church members of both political parties, and I assure you both were upset by your antics.” What the people that e-mailed us were in fact upset with, Mr. Thackery, was the fact that you cornered everyone you could in the church service to try to get people to help you in putting a stop to the signature gathering at church services. Where do you think most Pro-Life folk do congregate? Aren’t the church folk doing what they believe they have been instructed to do by the Bible which is protecting life and the helpless?

Thackery went on in his letter to say that Warburton “risked the tax-exempt status” of these churches but what he failed to mention is that he took it upon himself to run all over town like Captain Kangaroo on Prozac in a failed attempt to try and get various members of his Democrat Party to file a complaint about this apparent Pro-Life rallying of church members by a person who happened to be an elected representative. To the local Democrat leader’s credit, they refused to get involved with a guy that obviously doesn’t have all his cornflakes in the box.

William Thackery is positive proof that the policy of tenure for college professors needs to be revisited


  1. Bill has always been a damn nut. I was surprised to see in the letter that he even went to church? I always thought he claimed to be agnostic

    If I was Dana I would be mad that he even mentioned my name. She lost more than a few votes because of this ponytailed lame brains endorsement

  2. What is the matter with this guy? I was at that service the week the 5th ave people were doing a pro life Sunday and Wendy spoke. She talked about the pro life people’s desire to get the personhood amendment on the ballot. She did introduce herself as “Representative Wendy Warburton” but other than that she said nothing except about the attacks on pro life. She didn’t even mention she was running again and at that time she had no opponent

    Churches advocate for prolife, that’s what they do. If a church didn’t promote prolife, they should be ashamed, as should be Bill Thackery for this appalling letter trying to cause division among Christians due to politics. The fact that Bill Thackery tried to convince Democrat Central Committee Chairman John Musgrove to file a grievance against the tax status of the churches that asked Wendy to speak, places Thackery’s moral character lower than dirt. It is obvious that he only desires to see a pro-choice democrat elected by any and all means.

    There will be no Democrat or Republican labels in heaven Mr. Thackery

  3. There is a seperation of CHURCH AND STATE for a reason people. You bible thumpers want to LEGISLATE from your pulpits and that is what puts a black eye on organized religion. You want to congregate and worship your various gods, FINE, but don't for one second think you can force the rest of us to live by your "values" and so called "morals". I have read this blog and it is obviously a right wing propaganda, name calling, good ol boy hot spot. GET OVER YOURSELVES BOYZZZ!!
    Hey here is an idea, if you don't like abortion...DONT HAVE ONE!! And while I personally wouldn't have an abortion, I would never presume to think that what works or doesn't work for me should be the law for everyone. And once you so called Christians can start doing something about/for the children who are actually alive who are living in foster care (half a million currently in the US) then I will get on board with your OBSESSION with abortion. I find it interesting that you are quite obsessed with banning abortion, but once these kids are born you wash your hands, want NOTHING to do with them!! When they are born you are all like, "well their parents should be taking care of them." While you are right, their parents should....the fact is some DO NOT. They are children and if their parents cant/wont/dont want to, then someone needs too.
    This church should lose its tax exemption status...they are gathering signatures for legislation, and providing a pulpit for political speeches...seems pretty cut and dry to me??

  4. I don't believe her "speech" was appropriate. Pro life pro choice, whatever, Ms. Warburton clearly had a political agenda. Bashing Mr. Thackeray is quite interesting since I thought the corrector encouraged people's "opinions" which is what this letter was. HIS opinion. Whether it went against some campaign rule or law or a church's tax status, I don't know, and frankly don't care. I think the speech was innapropriate. I also think that the statement from freddy that Dana Seidel "lost more than a few votes" because someone expressed a negative opinion about an opponent is rediculous. I doubt very much Dana Seidel OR Dave Brewer for that matter asked Mr. Thackeray to write that letter. Now candidates must worry that they will lose votes if someone writes a negative opinion (thier opinion, not necessarily that of the candidate) regarding an opposing candidate?? Ludicrous.

  5. And again, and I HAVE to put it now because typos have been criticized already in this forum I apologize: THEIRS. Not THIERS. It happens.

  6. Red, I don't know if the corrector blog is a 'good ol boy' hot spot, but yes it does have it's fair share that get on. But just like all of us it is their right.
    I do agree with everything else that you said, along with seperation of church and state. Which is funny how many in the religious right want the government to follow the constitution to the letter, eg. guns. But seem to ignore the seperation of church part.
    Also the church doesn't all ways ignore children after their born. Just ask the cathlic church.

  7. I can understand why wendy needs a captive audience to campaign to. I personally think wendy couldn't attract ants if she poured honey on herself.

    I am truly thankful she didn't try to pontificate her radical views on the members of my church. They do not attend church to listen to a politician imposing their views to try to get re-elected by spouting Jerry Falwel's extremely right wing agenda.

    I hope she continues this strategy so the people of Hill County can see what a mistake they made by taking her off the ice-cream truck and wasting our taxes by sending her to Helena.

  8. Red: once again I'll quote the late(thanks Decon for reminding me) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

    You think this doesn't happen in Jesse Jackson's church or Al Sharpton's church or Rev. Wright's church? Don't you think when Bill Clinton used to make the rounds speaking at Southern Baptist churches all over the South he wasn't campaigning? What about Jimmy Carter?

    The point is where do you draw the line? I agree there is a separation of church and state; however, many people in this country have no clue what the Founding Father's meant by this section of the Constitution. The establishment clause, like the meaning of "right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment, or the perceived right to privacy in the First amendment or lately with healthcare the insterstate commerce clause are always used by people to prove their own views. I, however, have always been of the mind that we should interpret their words carefully and take them in context.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    No where does this say that public officials cannot discuss religion in church. This is an interpretation made by the IRS (an agency not addressed in the constitution. Secondly no one of the left who always discusses this topic ever mentions the other half of the clause, the proibiting the free exercise thereof part.

    So for the folks watching let's get the score.

    Founding Fathers escaping religious tyranny and taking up asylum leave Europe and fight for independence from the British Crown. Once they win they establish a constitution after a few bumblings anyway they get a document which we all can live by, right? Nope now we must begin the 200 years of interpretation of the the words and massaging the "living" document into one we can actually live by. So now we live under a constitutional republic governed by people who were elected by the people somehow who don't listen to us, create huge bureaucratic agencies to manage every aspect of our lives, make us work for 4 months of the year just to pay off the taxes that pay for all this stuff we never wanted or approved oh and by the way only covers 60% of the annual spending these drunken sailors spend each and every year so we have to go borrow the rest from our sworn enemies in a gesture of good will through a foreign policy not adopted by the people and not authorized in the constitution. . .

    You get the picture??? Our freedom is gone, long gone. Rep. Warburton might be a little abrasive to some with her language, but she does have the right to freedom of speech and you Mr. Thackeray and Red have the right to put your little fingers in your ears and not listen.

    A prolife public official in a prolife church talking to a majority prolife audience about a prolife issue, it's hard to imagine!

  9. I personally heard Wendy’s talk. It was not political and it is my understanding she was INVITED to speak on the personhood amendment because she is involved with working for its passage. Our church regularly lets – even asks pro-life people to speak but because Wendy is a politician are you saying we shouldn’t? That is ridiculous and I will be voting for Wendy again strictly because she is the type of person that will stand up for her convictions even if she gets bashed for those convictions

    You go girl!

  10. SuzyQ...her speach was NOT political, but she was invited to speak on an amendment?? HUH??
    I think you made my point for me...she was provided a PULPIT from which to further her political agenda....and I don't care if the politician is Republican, Democrat, black, or is dangerous to let ONEs religious values dictact public policy!!

  11. oops...dictate, not dictact

  12. Professor Thackeray-

    This speech was given by a republican at a repubican church. This is a church of white people preaching to white people, the values that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove wish America to live by.

    I have heard that some sermons end with a prayer for the "deregulation of propane and propane accessories"

    That is how republicans act and do business. The democrats do many of the same things, but usually at venues that are more encompassing and generally more fun.

    Choose your battles carefully Professor.

    There is no separation between church and state in the United States. The state sponsored religion of the United States is alive and well.

    Here is an essay written by Jack Trimpey, who many consider to be the worlds leading expert on addiction.

    The racist, sexist, and murderous 12 step faith, the American Taliban, is alive and well, and making policy at all levels of government.

  13. Red - whether or not a politician is Christian or atheist, their values do dictate their positions on which they cast their votes. In this case it was a speech by a Christian politician for a Christian audience about a petition that Christians care about.

    Deconstructor – I know many democrat people that are also Christians, the chairman of your beloved local democrat central committee as one example. And to spout off about Wendy’s church being all republican and all white plainly shows you have never been there. They pray for deregulation of propane? What are you talking about? Isn’t that some of that “yellow journalism you so love” Maybe you should go sell your crazy somewhere else; it appears we are all full up here.

    And now for the good professor; while he was a teacher at Northern he regularly let his classes slip into discussions about his feel good socialist agendas which were not a part of the class syllabus. I was more than once incensed about having paid good money to take a class where I had to endure his political opinions because he was the teacher. What is the difference between that and his having to listen to Wendy’s “class” where she talked about a subject where he doesn’t agree? It all depends on if you are the abuser, or the abused. That brings me to suggest that maybe the Corrector should do a story about the paid professional teachers that teach their own misguided belief systems to our impressionable youth under the umbrella of “higher education”. And for this they also charge the parents a pretty penny for promoting conflicting ideals than they have taught their own child. While I know nothing of Liberty University, I do understand why a parent wouldn’t want their child to attend a misguided government school taught by agenda driven professors.

  14. Liberty University was founded for the promotion of Jerry Falwells hate to be considered legit.

    Here is what the reverend stated about the terrorist attacks on 9/11:

    After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Reverend Jerry Falwell went on television and said:

    The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this. And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God or successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen".
    — Jerry Falwell, The 700 Club, 13 Sept 2001

    Years later, Jerry Falwell complained that his famous 9/11 rave was taken out of context. Al Franken said that the only way it could be considered to have been taken out of context was if it were immediately preceded by the words,

    "I'd have to be a friggin' nut to say..."
    == Al Franken Show, Air America Radio, 1 December 2004.

    America became a better place the day Jerry Falwell died.

  15. freddy...I sure you are correct to some extent, the difference seems to be on what subjects each party chooses to focus on. The Repubs are CHOOSING to focus on abortion and gay marriage and gays in the military...the Dems are CHOOSING to focus on health care for ALL American citizens. Ummm, hard to CHOOSE what side I want to affiliate with. You "christians" seem to think that everyone should live by your values...why is that? Here the Dems are trying to make sure that all Americans can seek out affordable health care, and you Christians are all up in arms over MONEY??? The AL MIGHTY dollar...ummm?? But dont see any articles on the "corrector" about the 12 Billion dollars per MONTH we waste on war...why is that? And why is it that you are all for "life" until that "life" is born and then you wash your hands of them, want nothing to do with them?? Interesting...

  16. "it is dangerous to let ONEs religious values dictact public policy!!"

    Red - each of us have values that we live by. Expressing them is part of living in a free society. And if our legislators values don't dictate how they vote then what does? And how they vote dictates public policy...

    What is dangerous is a group of legislators and a president who ignore the wishes of the majority of the country. We stop being a democracy or even a representative republic. whether you agree with universal health care or not it is a scary thing with those sent to represent us dont.

  17. Yes Kate we all have values and morales of a wide variety. I am referring to the RELIGIOUS ones. You know the people who are commonly referring to what "god says" though they have ever met God or have any clue as to what he would or would not say. Like for example the right wingers who say that God says that homosexuality is immoral, therefore we should ban gays from getting married or benefiting from marital status. Is that really fare...letting an alleged God dictate public policy. If you want to go that route, I'm sure I could fabricate my own God to "say" or "command" a lot of things.
    As far as this Health Care Bill goes, I can think of a lot worse things our President and Legislators could be doing with our money, other than insuring that my fellow Americans, even some of you on these blogs, is afforded the opportunity to see a doctor if the need should arise. Like starting or continuing these STUPID wars we have going on...and on...and on...what, did we just pass the 8 yr mark @ 12 Billion dollars per MONTH. Where is your outrage about that you fiscal conservatives??? I am from Havre and I know there arent too many of you who are raking in the 200-250 thousand dollar salaries, so what are you really complaining about?? Ohhh, can't wait to hear the what will be's and what if's. Didn't your prescious CBO you all have been touting to denounce this bill say that over the course of the next ten years this bill would DECREASE our national deficit?? Still you complain...

  18. There are real problems when politicians listen to religious fanatics...

  19. Would you whine as much if a church was promoting the health care bill? I know of one that did. Would you be as opposed to the church/state issue if it was promoting something you agreed with?
    Red, Your argument about religious people not caring about the children after they are born is simply an absurd argument with absolutely no basis. And Dacen’s cheap shot doesn’t even deserve the respect of a response.
    If you really believe the accounting sleight of hand that shows that the health bill will help the deficit, I bet you are waiting on the money you will be receiving from the Nigerian ambassador. Do the math yourself. People who aren’t covered because of existing illnesses will now be covered and you think costs will go down. Maybe a little too much MM for you!
    And Red, how much has our military spending in Iraq and Afganistan decreased since your hero was sworn into office? I thought he was going to get us out? What happened there?

  20. Thanks Thinker I was thinking almost the same thing!

    DeConstructor I used to like some of your comments, but you are nothing more than a liberal propaganda hack with your nonsense.

    You try to make a point about Falwell who was a shill, but nonetheless effective and then you trample on the man's grave by celebrating his dealth and then go on to prop up your half-baked notions with a quote from Al "Stuart Smalley" Franken, the official socialist jester of the Senate.

    Talk about a credibility gap. . .you guys give me a headache!

  21. red, what is dangerous is when a person with good values does not let their religious belief impacct their thinking. We need more people that would stand up for their convictions

    You go Wendy, we are behind you/

  22. so basically Suzy Q you not only believe that everyone should share your same religious based morals and values, based of course on a make believe book, but that it should be mandated by law. presumptious of you my and your ilk are truely dangerous!!

  23. I guess, whatever.......wendy has more sense than all of the uneducated deep thinkers that post on here

  24. "I guess, whatever..." is your reply?? And you are calling others uneducated, how Christ like of you Suzy....LOL

  25. Red have you ever taken a religious studies course or a course on humanities where they discuss religion and culture? If you have surely you can agree that many of the major tenets of the 5 major religions, i.e. Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism but all have different philosophies on the deity, sacraments, the prophets, etc. Also since nearly 90% of American people list some religion as a major source of peace in their lives, I find it interesting that you are so defensive about this topic. I think that is why people who do have religion in their lives get so disgusted by those who do not. We just got though a big lesson in "majority" rule with the healthcare bill, yet when it comes to religosity it is supposed to be minority rights over majority rule because of some perverted view of the Establishment Clause. I submit most people who spout off about separation of church and state have never even read the debates between Jefferson and Madison on this issue

  26. The founding fathers believed in God but many left Britain because of state sanctioned religion and wanted to worship God in their own way. Separation of State and religion was not to prevent religous ideals form being legislated...thou shall not kill happens to be a tenet of most religions and well there is a law against it. From what i have read here Wendy was not campaigning for herself but for a cause she believes in. Many times churches have people speak about their causes. She happens to be canidate wow Get off your pulpit red

  27. I like seeing everyone’s opinions but the church hatred people on here are so juvenile and nasty that there can never be any intelligent discourse. I don’t think Wendy did anything out of place but it looks as if I am not allowed to have an opinion if it disagrees with some here. So much for the land of the free. This blog could be a good thing for us all but it is getting too childish for me. Bye

  28. Red-

    Don't get me wrong I agree with you. Those dangerous Christian jerks with their stupid tenants of faith. No killing, no your neighbor as yourself!!! GASP!! Dangerous indeed.

  29. Railroader...thats the beautiful thing about this are free to worship or NOT worship. I can't say that I have ever taken a class, but I have several religious friends (yes believe it or not, I have religious friends). I am TOTALLY fine with people worshiping and religion. I am not fine with people like Suzy Q, who admit they believe their morals and values are superior and that it should be the law of the land. And Kate...if only the religious right we your average every day love thy neighbor type. Noooo...take Suzy Q and Mrs. Warburton who want to, and do legislate their religious beliefs. I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, but because the religious do it is ILLEGAL for gays to get married. As I have stated, if you want to be religious...FINE, please do...but don't force it on me please!!

  30. To Red obviously you don't believe in the bible because, it does say,A man shall not lay with another man.I believe our country was founded on religion,our history teachs us that.So keep reading your koran and i'll keep reading the bible.

  31. fed up-

    Yep that is what the bible says.

    Among other things, it was perfectly captured in an segment of NBC's "The West Wing" entitled "The Midterms".

    It was also the first time an anonymous piece, emailed around the world made it to national television, with a hope of changing society.

  32. Fed how you can read my mind. I do not believe in a book written entirely by your average human MAN based on what they allegedly saw...sorry. Do I believe that 2 of every species lived on a boat for a months....ummmm NO!! In order to believe in the bible you would have to believe in the boogy man too, and I have yet to see him either!! I also do not believe or read the Koran, or any other fiction based, alleged real text!! Fed up, if you wish to worship fake gods, be my guest, but don't require me to!!

  33. To Red:I probably don't live the way i should but i do believe Christ died on the cross for my sins and yours also.Just accept him as your saviour and you shall be saved.I will pray for you Red.I would rather believe in God and find out there isn't one,than not to believe in him and find out there is one.

  34. It seems normal that Mr. Thackery is all up set about the rules of engagement. But gives a total pass to the group ACORN that campaigns for democrat's on federal money.
    Total violation of the rules. Even his own Jon Tester came into Montana on a vote early and vote often tour.

  35. Hey fed up, don't worry about me...I'll be just fine. I haven't decided if I don't believe in God, but I definately think the Bible is just another work of fiction.