Obama making David Copperfield look like an amateur
by Nelson Price
September 14, 2013 11:47 PM | 1542 views | 4 4 comments | 44 44 recommendations | email to a friend | print
And you thought David Copperfield was good! As one of the world’s most amazing magicians, he often uses one of the most elemental of magician’s tactics — diversion. It is a ploy used to get the viewers’ attention away from what is really happening. The viewer is enticed to look right while something is done on the left.

Some politicians are better at the art than Copperfield. A war or threat of war instigated by a president as a diversionary policy or diversionary war is sometime intended to divert attention from his domestic policies. Almost all modern era presidents have been accused of using the tactic. Empirical evidence is hard to obtain, however.

Fabricated international conflicts have occasionally been used to solicit support for the administration and divert attention from a domestic dilemma. It has been alleged to have been used to give presidents opportunity to act in a way that otherwise would not have been tolerated. This has been called the “Rally ‘round the flag” syndrome.

Leading the nation into military conflict has on occasion resulted in an increase in popularity for that president.

Not to imply that 9/11 was anything other than a heinous realistic terrorist attack, nevertheless President Bush’s response saw his approval rating soar to 80 percent.

During the late 1960s, there were major social disturbances and domestic conflicts. In retrospect it was claimed President Lyndon Johnson used a disputed attack on a warship in the Gulf of Tonkin to enter the conflict between North and South Korea. He called entering the engagement an act of “containment.” His action did not bring about homeland unity or garner him support. It backfired and led to him not running again for office.

Our present president has proven to be a skilled tactician regarding diversions. The use of an anti-Muslim film to divert attention from the real issue in Benghazi is an example.

Could it be that a classic example of presidential diversion is now at play? At a time when Congress needs to be giving undivided attention to the Affordable Care Act there is suddenly a potential war brewing. The old ploy of using an international issue to divert attention from a domestic crisis would fit the pattern. After all, it has been known for some time that chemicals have been used in Syria. Suddenly it is the most pressing of issues.

One month remains before Obamacare reaches a tipping point. If it is to be stopped it must be by Oct. 1. The tactic proposed to prevent it becoming policy is not to fund it. The issue is not getting the attention it would if there were not the Syrian issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi infamously said in attempting to pass the bill they needed to pass it so they could see what was in it. Now that which is in it has been seen, it contains policies that will complicate medical service and disrupt the economy. If that is true why doesn’t Congress admit it was a mistake and not fund it?

It is interesting that Nancy Pelosi, who was instrumental in passing the bill, is one who has most strongly encouraged the president to take action against Syria. Ironically this is happening at the time consideration needs to be given to not funding the ACA she helped get passed for the president.

They make Copperfield look like an amateur who forgot where he put the rabbit.

The Rev. Dr. Nelson Price is pastor emeritus of Roswell Street Baptist Church.

Comments-icon Post a Comment
the price is right
September 16, 2013
That was pretty cool how Obama tricked all the Republicans into demanding that we work with the U.N. and the Russians on the Syria problem.

But why do they keep falling for it when he tricks them? Every... single... time...!!!
September 15, 2013
Well said.
Just Asking
September 15, 2013
Of all Price's millions, can he not pay to get his teeth and hair fixed?
September 15, 2013
Nelson Price's article here mirrors a lot of what Palin just had to say about Obamacare. She said in part that people will have to pay for treatment for substance abuser's treatment regardless of whether they have never touched a drop of alcohol or injested any illegal drug. That borders on insane. Talk about smoke and mirrors and magic? Whose moral compass decides insurance coverage? What about people with diabetes that eat sugar still (but they go to Price's church every Sunday and tithe? That is a sidebar joke-how many dollar bills does Nelson get folded up to hide the demoniation of the dollar?). The person with high blood pressure that eats 100 plus the daily recommended amount of salt, even though sodium has been proven to be a huge factor of high blood pressure? If we go by Nelson's and Palin's standards, the salt police need to be in these people's lives. How about people that don't believe in pre-martial sex paying for people to have babies out of wedlock as Palin's own daughter did? What do you say about Jehovah's Witnesses having to pay for blood transfusions? No, it is madness that so very long insurance got tied to employment somehow and now the Nelson's and Palin's of the world want to add morality to the mix. What do people and companies do now? Palin? Nelson? If you have a job and we go to a government healthcare program, people have to pay for it. Do companies raise salaries based on the amount they "used to give" for insurance so that people can buy insurance? How do companies then put the police on paychecks to ensure this was not a large salary increase, but the insurance police have to be there to ensure you put this windfall toward insurance? This is a huge, huge, huge mess. A huge mess. I don't know that anyone can ever figure out the insurance mess in America. I do know that as Nelson is preaching and Palin is preaching about "moral" positions, Nelson's own family and Palin's own family have had situations that I do not medically agree with nor morally agree with, yet insurance paid for. The question this column asks for an answer for is who is going to be the insurance police? What religion rules in insurance regulation? What moral code says Palin's unwed daughter gets her baby paid for by insurance, yet I do not believe in it, but the birth of her granchild gets paid for? Nelson is covered by insurance. No worries there. Take Nelson off his insurance and he gets sick and his millions are slowly eroded by medical bills, I think he would be talking another story entirely. Nelson does realize, I hope, that every single penny someone saves in their lifetime can be wiped out in a minute on medical bills by this convulated existing insurance system of ours here in the grand ole' U.S. Come on now, all you diabetics that eat your pie every day, applaud the current system. Go on now, Palins, pop your unwed babies out, but don't abuse drugs. It is perfectly okay if you are a Palin to give birth to an unwed child, but it is not okay if you are not a Palin. 'Member Price and Palin decide which immoral act gets paid for by insurance and which one does not.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides