14 Governors Threatened, Hoax?

Bookmark and Share
Posted by

When I first saw this article entitled “14-Governor Threatened with Immediate Arrest by Obama” published on Canada Free Press I immediately contacted the editor. It initially seemed like a hoax to me, but if  true was big news. Given the wild topic, I only found the article’s validity possible because of the strong reputation that CFP has for truthful reporting. Based on their rapid resolution, I still believe that CFP is a high quality source. Here’s part of the letter I sent to the editor:

“I just ran across a very interesting article but I have strong doubts that the article is based on fact. Can you vouch for the information found here, or for this author: [original link to CFP article removed]“

Apparently the author of this article was a new writer for CFP and after checking the validity of the article the editor immediately removed it from the CFP website. Here was the meat of the editor’s response:

“Thank you for your email which sent us checking the source of the story.  We found it led back to often inaccurate [inaccurate website removed]. We have now removed the article.  It was posted in error and thankfully was up for less than two hours.”

The following day, I received a stock letter from the author of the “14 Governors” article. In my opinion, the letter seemed like an attempt to defend his reputation after publishing an unverifiable article by positioning himself as a champion of freedom with inside information. You know the old “I could tell you, but I’d have to kill you” routine. Here’s is the part of the letter that explains, in his words, why the article was pulled.

“My briefing paper was not “scrubbed” because of some sordid reason.  I became aware of an issue in the content of my report, and wholeheartedly endorsed removing the report.  The government did not threaten any action.  I was not nor was the site coerced into removing the report.  I became aware that the sensitivity of the material was of such a nature that unless I could produce actual National Security Letters I referenced, it would be better to remove the report.  I could not produce these, and I realized the information could easily be questioned and discarded as another reactionary conspiracy theory gone amuck.”

Obviously, the part in bold above stuck out like a red thumb. The article’s message is fundamentally based on these “National Security Letters” that cannot be produced and there is no reason to believe that the author has any inside ties that would give him temporary access to the letters. Therefore,  there is no story.

After it was removed from CFP, less reputable web sites ran with the story and you can find it all over the internet today by simple searching on “14 Governors”. So the article continues to live on as a some kind of conspiracy theory.

Finally, after hearing rumors Rick Perry’s office was refusing to deny the report, I called the Office of the Governor. They indicated that they knew about the article and adamantly stated that “no letter was received” by the office.

The bottom line: The article is likely a hoax and the author is likely a fraud.

Brian Roberts is a long-time volunteer with the Texas TAC and a regular contributor to the Tenth Amendment Center website.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Support the Tenth Amendment Center!

10 Responses to “14 Governors Threatened, Hoax?”

  1. Little Bright Feather says:

    To exchangerates – You have that right and they should have done it long ago already ! THAT is he Military’s duty – not to obey that Foreign imposter terrorist ! Terrorism is what he has done to all of us !

  2. Little Bright Feather says:

    If the “14 governors” was true, Obama would need to be charged with Treason since that is what it would be. He (no president) has any lawful or Constitutional permission to do anything to any state or interfere in any way with a state’s affairs or laws or their governor = IT’S TREASON ! States are their own sovereign nations – not “property” of DC ! The States are what formed/created DC to begin with – and it’s time that child gets some firm discipline ! DC is way out of control and thinks it has more power then it does have. DC was never established to be “THE RULER” over anything or anyone ! Their head is way too big !

  3. Obama values his miserable life more than that.
    The US Army would drag his rotten carcass out of the
    White House, before they'd allow that filthy imposter
    to tear this country apart.

  4. Thank you very much, I know there are those who want to stick Obama with everything but people should be truthful first.

  5. TC says:

    Well done. Disinfo hoaxer Sorcha Faal is also reporting this — and may be the original source, cites Nat Security Letters and — typical Faal — an imaginary GRU source. http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1375.htm

  6. Brian says:

    Great post Monorprise.

  7. Monorprise says:

    Regardless of the authenticity of this particular incident this is a fight we will probably eventually have to wage and win.

    I must admit I had my doubts about this article's authenticity, and refused to link to it. But in the back of my mind there was a thought of sheer terror that it might be true. In any-case the lack of evidence is the real killer.

    We would need someone to apparently "illegally" release such a letter to the public for verification, and even then I must question the outrage of the public, still relativity few of our population realize just how serous a threat such a letter would be to our federal Constitutional system of government.

    Indeed some would probably try to defend the letters on the grounds of fighting the "George Wallace's" of the world, which insolently did not happen to the real George Wallace. Probably saying that they would have been in violation of the law and making some legal argument how nobody is above the law and the president has a right to threaten them with arrest if they "break the law" in the presidents point of view.

    We would then respond with the clam that the Federal government had violate the law in making the unconstitutional act in the first place. "moderates" like Bill O'reilly would insist that we take that to the courts and not just do our own things, and probably try to completely ignore our point that the courts are appointed by the same people who broke the law in the first place.

    At that point if they listen to our argument they would probably say well "that is our system", as we say no its not our system, such a system would be an insane conflict of interest. but the "nationalist" wont hear anything about it as of course they got it stuck in their head that "we are one national indivisible" and therefore that somehow gives them the right to lay clam over us with regard to whatever they want.(Remember the inalienable right of secession has already been denied by the brute force of "Civil War").

    Therefore (in their world) we are slaves to the absolute and unconditional tyranny of the majority.
    – A fact I seriously wonder if they would admit to…?

    If they did I would ask them what "system" of government would they institute to protect the individual rights of the people, assuming they accepted that being a slave to the absolute and unconditional tyranny of the majority is an untenable position for a freedom loving people.
    A position effectively and demonstratively held by the Federal government in practice?

    I would furthermore ask them what gives them the right to impose that or any other system upon me or anyone else without our consent? (Where is the consent of the governed if the governing has the effective ability to arbitrarily redefine the limits of such consent without recourse by the injured minority?)

    Where is the consent of the governed if the Federal government gets to write and rewrite our it's own limitations in accordance to its own dictates? You presume its held accountable to the majority of the people but what about the minority they are governed as well? Is it the consent of the governed or the consent of 50%+1 of the majority? What is a propose of a constitution which requires 3/4ths of the states to amended. Yet can in practice be modified drastically by the indirect(and frequently inadvertent) acts of only a majority of the States?(Judicial Nomination)

    What I dispute is of course judicial activism and the legal grounds upon which it clams to stand and hold relevance. But it is not merely what most regard as "judicial activism."

    When they argue it is thou elections, I would then ask them why do we have a Constitution at all, why not a parliamentary system?

    There is no reconciling their position with what we have when it is examined to its logical conclusions. It is my hypotheses that the vast majority of our population has yet to examine our their logic or lack there of, and are unlikely to do so due to the limited time frame of the of the news cycle.

    Therefore if we are to win such a hypothetical fight, we will need to find a way to condense all of this information down into a simple phrase, perhaps an analogy that may be understood.

  8. Thank you very much, I know there are those who want to stick Obama with everything but people should be truthful first.

  9. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam Petrovsky, Get Cash Now, Get Cash Now, Get Cash Now, Get Cash Now and others. Get Cash Now said: 14 Governors Threatened, Hoax?: Here was the meat of the editor's response: “Thank you for your email which sent u… http://bit.ly/a7P6Gl [...]

Leave a Reply