In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences.


Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.

As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders. The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution. Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen. In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.”


The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012. This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports: “Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.

“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.” This also brings the USA closer to becoming a “North American Union” and—also—eliminating its sovereignty—in toto.

Suffice it to say, no one in Congress has issued even the proverbial “peep” over either of these illegal “orders.” Do the American people really want to continue to live under this blatant tyranny?

The second question is “Will the Supreme Court of the United States of America bow to Obama and give up its co-equal status to the dictator as the US Congress has already done?” If so, perhaps its time for We-the-People to recruit the Honduran Supreme Court who, along with their military, ousted its then President Manuel Zelaya who had become a dictator. Oppression under the Obama syndicate becomes worse each and every day, folks. Will we ever choose to go back to the sunshine?

“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”—Revelation 13:4

Another great move the last few days.....

Obozo has just agreed with the Afghan regime for our troops to remain ANOTHER 10 YEARS.... so much for the the 2013 or sooner withdrawl that over 70% of Americans are screaming for!

Still think he cares about what "we the people" want?

no references, no facts,,,

per usual,,,

He is the only "president" that I am aware of who has repeatedly attacked and threatened the SCOTUS. What a mook!

a threat is saying you will be dead or in jai lf somone is elected

a warning is saying, if you eat too much cake you will get fat
OR
if healthcare repeal is overturned it will t hreaten Medicare,,,



,,,see the difference there?

a threat involves a claim of an action the one THREATENING plans to take,,,

A threat doesn't specifically mean to do harm to someone, if you disagree with me I will make you the butt of a joke! See how that works, nothing physical but a threat none the less.

threat/THret/




Noun:




1.A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not...: "the family has received death threats"
2.A menace of bodily harm, such as may restrain a person's freedom of action.




in the context of a person 'threatening' someone,, thats precisely what it means

if it is just a statement of a perceived natural consequence to a choice, its called a warning,,,

threat (thrt)
n.
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
tr.v. threat·ed, threat·ing, threats Archaic
To threaten.

I don't care what that says!

pick a different dictionary and you can just about back up anything you want

thats why its so easy to write an article making any claim we want in the instant media age

because the english language is so easily twisted to deceive others,,,

but it would be interesting to see in ANY dictionary where the word 'threaten' doesnt involve some personal intent to act,,,

In MY opinion Hussein has threatened, menaced, harassed, bamboozled, hornswoggled, attacked, raped, pillaged, and burned the SCOTUS.

Im sure , in YOUR opinion he has, and probably is EXCLUSIVELY guilty of doing these things while holding presidential office

a stand out and unique traitorous dicatator the likes of which the white house has never seen,,,

The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him. sounds like some people will be affected physically...or they can choose not to go to the doctor since they don't have the money to pay

is said to be


by whom?

Them.

you can't google? signing 2 executive orders in one week should be pretty easy to follow up on...

sometimes it's "they" too...

I could, but Im gambling it wont be worded the way the author worded it,, so I dont bother,,,,

Goose and gander MsH.... you want proof, who said, where.

You can't assume something to be invalid if you don't research it, therefore your response in the negative, or contrary, to the OP, is also invalid.