Peter vs. President Obama

Peter Egan vs Barack ObamaPeter Egan vs. Barack Obama
Who do you think would win in a hypothetical fight between Peter Egan and Barack Obama?

Now, thanks to a video by Sid Impastato --- a video which Peter Egan had nothing to do whatsoever with the production thereof --- we no longer have to wonder the answer to that question.

The video depicts what would happen if hypothetically Peter, (who has had enough of the president cyberstalking him on social networks like Twitter and more recently Pinterest) has decided not to take it anymore, engaging President Obama in fictional combat, the results of which are fairly decisive...

Video Description

Peter Egan takes on Barack Obama in a (fictional, satirical and humorous) hypothetical round of anything goes combat.

DISCLAIMER: I, Peter Egan, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the production of this short film. I accept no responsibility whatsoever for its creation and it is not in anyway reflective in a literal sense my views with regard to the President or at least his physical wellbeing. This is satire. It is intended to be humerous in nature.

Register domain names for less, unlimited web hosting and free DIY website, blog, forum and e-commerce software at!
Embed or Share this Video

Embed or share this video by copying/pasting the following embed code:
<div 'background-color:#e9e9e9; -moz-border-radius: 10px;border-radius:10px;width: 395px;'><object id='A64060' quality='high' data='' pluginspage='' 'application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='transparent' height='299' width='390'><param name='wmode' value='transparent'></param><param name='movie' value=''></param><param name='scaleMode' value='showAll'></param><param name='quality' value='high'></param><param name='allowNetworking' value='all'></param><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true' /><param name='FlashVars' value='cornerRadius=10&external_make_id=EAojJETDTqGvMnizRIE5Mg&'></param><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='always'></param></object><div 'text-align:center;margin-top:6px;'>Register domain names for less, unlimited web hosting and free DIY website, blog, forum and e-commerce software at <a href='' title='!'>!</a></div></div>

Peter Egan: Important PSA For All Federal Lawmakers and Unelected Government Officials

My disgruntled dissatisfaction with the results coming out of Washington D.C., particularly as it pertains to the Executive Branch, the U.S. Senate (with just a handful of exceptions) and House Speaker John Flaccid, is rapidly morphing into total apathy.

For the first time in my life, I do not identify with any political party, and for the first time in my life would consider the prospect of voting a waste of time and energy.

To all those who helped bring me to this point of total apathetic cynicism, I am of the belief that Mr. Red Peters is better able to articulate my opinions of you than even I am.

That said, without further adieu:

Alternate Title: How to Debate a Liberal and Win
U.S. Representative John Fleming, MD
By: Peter Egan

In this post, I am confronted by a liberal supporter of (I suspect) one of the Landrieus over the character of Congressman John Fleming (R-LA).


I received confirmation from Congressman Fleming that the reason Ms. Jensen was blocked from commenting on his Facebook page was not for the reasons she states below, but due to personal attacks like those directed towards yours truly in the below screen-shots of the Facebook debate she randomly initiated with me, I can only presume because no one else was willing to talk to her.

I know a LOT of politicians. I have met very, very few with whom I've been as impressed on a personal level as I was Congressman Fleming. The man manages his own Facebook account and will take questions and/or comments from constituents at any time of day. He responds personally. This is very rare for Washington. Nearly everyone else has staff do the talking for them.

Not Rep. John Fleming, who is also a medical doctor. He responds personally to each Facebook inquiry. That alone, in my humble opinion, makes him more qualified than another John (Boehner) for the role of House Speaker.

At least in Fleming, we'd have a way to tell him how disappointed we are in the job he's done, although if Fleming were speaker rest assured we would not be so gravely disappointed as we are with Speaker Boehner. We'd actually be proud of the job he'd do in such a position.

Anyway, without further adieu, here's my obliteration of a liberal who attacked Congressman Fleming's character. She started the debate, and I won it.

If this were a football game, the score would have been in the neighborhood of 56-0 in favor of the truth (which in this case was on my side).


Capitalism Will Ultimately Prevail Over Democratic Socialism; But When?

Democratic Socialism Vs. Free-Market Capitalism

Capitalism = Freedom
By: Peter Egan

I came across a terrific site recently called Tea Party Tribune. This was the site that republished the article appearing on this blog relating to the reasoning behind the GOP's ouster of Michael Steele as RNC Chairman following the most successful election cycle in Republican Party history, and subsequent replacement with a man no one had heard of prior to his appointment. As it turned out once the 2012 dust had settled, there was a very good reason no one had ever heard of Reince Preibus until the day he was made RNC Chairman --- the man is a spineless loser, just like the two men (and I use that term very, very loosely) who head up party leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives and United States Senate, respectively.

The article at Tea Party Tribune took the approach of pitting free market supply-and-demand economics (capitalism) against democracy, with an assumed premise that only one of the two could ultimately "prevail". The article touches upon some very good points, most notably that with a little help from their (deceased) friends, democrats have figured out a way to vote money away from those who earn it in order to redistribute it to the lazy, slothful and gluttonous in exchange for votes.

The article left readers with the question as to whether or not Capitalism has what it takes to ultimately take back economic freedom for the citizens of the United States of America, and/or if the country was doomed.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Eventually Capitalism will prevail, it always does - and must, as it is just one of the laws of nature by which our universe is governed. The better question is how much wealth must be destroyed and how many lives must be lost before the pendulum starts to right itself before shifting momentum back towards the opposite direction from the trajectory it finds itself on today.

All of nature is governed by the laws of supply and demand. All evolution among all species is the byproduct of competition within and among species. What science terms "evolution" is merely a term to define a species' ability to make inter-generational, fundamental changes in the manner in which the species competing within the marketplace that is nature is best able to adapt to changes in the environment, which includes but is in no way limited to the number, type and degree of threat posed by the competition. For a wild rabbit, competition may refer to such creatures as hawks, owls, coyotes and even herbivores like armadillos insomuch that the two are often times both competing for the same food sources.

Anytime supply far outpaces demand or vice versa, the marketplace will inevitably correct the discrepancy. However, the amount of time required for it to do just that can vary from several days, weeks or years to several generations depending upon the nature and severity of said discrepancy.


Bicyclists Have Right to Ride in Road, But Should They?

Bicyclists Hold Up Traffic

By: Peter Egan

I hate sharing the road with bicyclists. I know they've the same right to use it, I just wish that wasn't the case. Too often, I see cyclists endangering their own lives and those of others by riding their bikes down some of the most dangerous roads in the United States, such as Lee Road (Hwy 437) in Covington, Louisiana, a road considered among the nations most dangerous in terms of mortality rates relative to the amount of traffic.

There are alternate routes to all the same places that are much safer, but I get the impression these cyclists do this for a power trip. They know that although permitted, passing on Lee Road is like playing Russian roulette, and that their exercising their right to ride in the roadway will inevitably amount in a mile-long line of motorists, all forced to drive a fraction of the speed limit because some control freak decided to take his bike out and hold up traffic.

To be clear, my reasoning is not that I hate having to share the road with them. For the record, I don't like to see other people get hurt, and yes, I am aware that I own a business that sells medical supplies to people who among other things have suffered minor-to-moderate injuries to their bones and joints. I take no pleasure in someone else' pain, and were all my orthopedic customers to disappear I'd find another way to earn a living. My preference would be that the customer who calls up in need of a cervical collar (a form of neck brace) not do so because he or she was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle that occurred while riding a bike.

I know that people will always find a way to harm themselves, I just think that bicycles in the roadway is a bad idea. Too many drivers get road rage too easily these days, and a person is in no position to flee a road raging driver while seated upon a bike.

That said, that is not to say that Lee Road is the only road where I object to seeing bicyclists, or even that bicyclists should avoid dangerous roads, highways and other thoroughfares on which automobiles travel in general. Truth be told, if it were left up to me, people riding bicycles would be required to ride on the sidewalk anytime a sidewalk is present, and in cases where there is no sidewalk, people riding their bikes would be expected to use the route (if more than one is available to reach the bicyclists' target destination) with the lowest speed limit (which usually translates into the least amount of traffic) of those routes available.

Bicyclist Hit by Car
Bicyclist Hit by SUV While Riding in the Road
Pedestrians would have the right-of-way on sidewalks, and aside from that bicyclists would be expected to have a horn or bell to warn pedestrians as they approach to pass on the left.
Bicyclist Fail
Bicyclist Fail
I've never understood laws (at least in Louisiana) which prohibit cyclists from using the sidewalk but allots them equal rights when it comes to riding in the street with the cars, trucks and SUV's.

If politicians can take the time out of their busy schedules to talk about banning guns because some idiots misuse them and there are consequences for people besides the idiots who misuse the guns, they can take the time to address this important issue. If banning guns is a practical solution to stop violence in which a gun is used in committing said act of violence, banning bicyclists from riding on streets, in roads, on highways, parkways, drives, boulevards thoroughfares and ways is an even more practical approach to putting an end to unnecessary delays while on the road, and unnecessary injuries suffered by the drivers and the passengers of the vehicles involved in the accidents caused by idiots who misuse bicycles. Accomplishing the latter wouldn't even necessitate the complete and total destruction of the nation's founding document.

Campus Gun Bans - School Shootings
Campus Gun Bans: While We're on the Subject

Peter Egan - Re: Hullabaloo

The three letters (or more accurately pieces of coordinated hate mail) made up the entire op/ed section of the February 04, 2005 issue of the Hullabaloo, Tulane University's student newspaper. That particular week, the editorial staff made the decision to devote the entire section to a small sampling of the hate mail that had been pouring in since the moment the previous week's issue first hit the press.

The hate mail is directed specifically at yours truly, and one of the students who wrote for the paper told me privately that they received about 450 in all, the overwhelming majority of which were far too vividly worded to publish.

The reason? In light of a months-long spate of violent crimes against female Tulane students occurring as they were walking from campus to either their homes or vehicles (about a 15 total rapes and/or armed robberies occurring within about a 12-14 week period leading up to the issue preceding the Feb. 04 edition), I had the audacity and the gall to suggest that the Tulane campus gun ban was at best not helping put a stop to the violence, at worst (and the far more likely scenario) was a direct contributing factor to the confidence and opportunism armed robbers and rapists were so inundated with during this period in which every 100 yards throughout the campus there were signs announcing that guns on campus were strictly forbidden and that your right to keep and bear arms ends when you step foot onto the Tulane campus.

My editorial - which curiously vanished from the paper's archives though the response the following week has remained online for the better part of a decade - concluded with an assertion that not only should the campus gun ban be repealed, but that Tulane be held liable for damages to the persons, property as well as punitive damages incurred by the victims of these violent crimes who were attacked while leaving campus unarmed en route to their home and/or vehicles.

I still believe that colleges and universities which prohibit firearms in the possession of students on campus should be held liable for such damages and be court-ordered to offer the victims financial compensation for their suffering.

The student body at Tulane in February of 2004 was so outraged that approximately one in every 12-14 students wrote a letter the following week denouncing me for my flawed thinking and even more brazen willingness to express such an offensive opinion.

Of all my accomplishments in my 31 years, few mean more to me than having offended thousands of liberals, at least 600 or so (450 by the print deadline) of which so much so that they felt compelled to write and submit a direct response, almost all of which were unfit for print for reasons you can imagine.

To this day, I take a tremendous amount of pride in the article the Hullabaloo won't show you because it is too persuasive for lefties to allow it to exist under the guise of free speech or freedom of expression. Few moments of my life have been more enjoyable than opening that February 04 issue and looking with shock at my own name in extra-large font sprawled across the top of the page as a shared headline for everything published in the opinion/editorial section that week. At no point during my five or so years attending that school did I ever walk so tall on campus or with such a spring in my step as during the time between when the below issue was released and eventually replaced the following week.

The least profane of the 450 submissions received by the print deadline are below. To read them in large font, run a Google web search for "re: peter egan jr".

For what it's worth, I emailed Kira McCalister after reading her letter. She declined to accompany me on my walk home from campus.

Campus Gun Ban
The first of the Hullabaloo's three least offensive letters objecting to Peter Egan's proposed lifting of the campus gun ban.
Hullabaloo Tulane Guns
The second in the series of angry students' denouncements of my audacity.
Peter Egan Jr Denounced
The third letter denouncing Peter Egan Jr.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
New Video of Reverend Wright's Lunacy Breaks Just Before Election!

By: Peter Egan

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2012 - New Orleans-based talk radio personality James Parker of the John Osterlind Show, the James Show and Living at Life - all of Rush Radio WRNO - has uncovered a new and extremely shocking tirade by President Barack Obama's pastor of twenty years Jeremiah Wright.

Of particular interest as it pertains to this video is the fact that to the best of the collective knowledge of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (Facebook Group), this clip has yet to air on any mainstream media outlet, or if it has, coverage has been fleeting at best.

The video is truly outrageous, and serves as further evidence that Reverend Wright is an out-and-out lunatic without speaking for those who revered him as a holy man.

All the credit for this tape goes to James Parker of Rush Radio WRNO New Orleans, who as best I can tell uncovered this little gem on his own.

More Craziness From Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Could tapes such as this one be the reason Andrew Breitbart was murdered shortly after threatening to "vet" Obama this go round? I sure hope not, but I'm afraid that people's fear of meeting a similar fate has something to do with the fact that this video was only first released in late September and has only been viewed by 113 people as of the time of this writing.

I wonder how they were able to shield the public from this doozy for so long. This is one of the men whose influence helped shape and define the man we know as Barack Obama.
I'm going to begin by declaring that I will not open this post by saying "see, I told you so". Had Rush not already more or less trademarked the phrase (don't know whether he actually owns that trademark and don't plan on checking), I might have otherwise considered it.

Throughout the duration of the staged production referred to by the government-media propaganda co-op as the GOP Primary, I boldly predicted Mitt Romney would win the GOP nomination before voting had even began (Louisiana Congressman John Fleming can attest to this as he was present for the conversation). I first put the prediction into writing on June 13, 2011, long before the process was even underway.

My fear was that the inundation of conservative-leaning candidates would divide up the party's right-leaning voters, resulting in the party's moderates usurping the overwhelming majority of the party's voters for the fourth straight time (the last conservative to win the nomination was Ronald Reagan).

On June 13 I wrote that the conservative candidates who had either announced or had expressed strong interest in running "may hurt each others' candidacies by splitting the Tea Party vote as well as that of other conservative factions, thus diluting each of their chances to capture statewide races, which in turn could potentially result in another moderate winning the nomination - not because he or she is the most popular candidate, but because the other cluster of candidates were too similar on the issues for any one of them to distinguish themselves enough to outshine the rest."

Our last four respective nominees have all been weak candidates. Even George W. Bush barely squeaked out a victory over a man in Al Gore whom no reasonable parent would trust for 30 seconds alone with their children, much less their wallets. Bob Dole was an excellent comedian, and based on his Saturday Night Live performance appears to have missed his calling in life. It certainly wasn't Presidential politics.

John McCain was the subject of intense speculation over the prospect that he might potentially switch party allegiances just two short years before winning the Republican nomination. Sarah Palin is the only reason that ticket didn't lose in all 50 states.

This time, a field consisting of scores of red meat conservatives cancelled out each others delegates, handing the nomination to an arguably moderate-liberal Massachusetts governor with a record on health care that was every bit as bad as Obama's.

I am becoming increasingly skeptical that all of those portraying themselves as legitimate, bona fide, right-of-center conservatives are as they portrayed themselves to be during the primary season. This is especially true of Newt Gingrich, whom Mitt Romney owes a tremendous debt of gratitude for siphoning off enough of the votes which would have otherwise gone to Rick Santorum to hand Romney the nomination. However, he is not the only one upon whom I now view with an air of suspicion, just the one whose presence in the contest most benefited Gov. Romney.

If each and every Presidential election year the Republicans are going to offer voters a field of choices loaded with conservatives and one lightweight Republican for whom an argument could be made for being more of a borderline democrat, the majority of the party will never again be satisfied with the party's eventual nominee. Sure, most will inevitably get behind him in the end given how bad the alternative is, but will be more-or-less disenfranchised from the primary process by virtue of the field itself.

It is cliche that one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior while anticipating a different result each time. Therefore, at least according to my logic, conservative Republicans would be insane to continue to offer unfettered loyalty and allegiance to a party that wants nothing to do with us, and actively seeks to subvert our will by loading the field with real conservatives competing against a single moderate.

Either conservative voters must wake up and recognize that our party has abandoned us, or we must decide in advance of the primary which candidate presents the best shot at winning both the primary and general election, consolidating our political donations to said candidate while actively encouraging all other conservatives to drop out of the race.

I still can't help but wonder whether Newt Gingrich was in the race as a pawn for Romney or if it was a personal angst against Santorum. Bottom line is that after Florida, he and his campaign staff knew they had no shot but stayed in it until the end, which did more damage to conservatism than anything, while serving as a Ross Perot-type figure relative to Mr. Romney.

Granted after watching Romney wipe the floor clean with Obama during last week's monumentally lopsided debate performance, a strong case can be made that Romney all along represented the best shot at unseating Obama.

However, I am still not without trepidation as the country needs a figure to the right of Reagan, and I still have doubts about the extent to which a moderate Republican can undo the damage the Saboteur-in-Chief has done to America.


Communist Government News Denounces Companies For Sponsoring Private News Sites

By: Peter Egan

Government News
This is a lead story in an "Official" online Vietnamese newspaper. The story is about the "controversial" practice of prestigious companies advertising on "Black Websites". After completing the article, it became clear to me that by "black websites", they mean Vietnamese online news sites and blogs that are NOT run by the government. The story acknowledges that the non-government newspapers receive far more traffic and readership than the official ones. 

These "black websites" have apparently been reporting on some matters that were supposed to be kept quit, and this story appears to represent a thinly veiled threat by the communist government to the businesses sponsoring these sites that it's time to withdraw their sposorship.

Once you realize that by "black websites", the writer of this piece posted on an official government-sponsored news site is referring to independent news sites and blogs disseminating news in Vietnamese but are not controlled by the government, only then can an American unfamiliar with Vietnamese culture understand this story and how it relates to the future of 

American media. 

The American media is among the driving forces fundamentally reforming America to a country that more resembles modern-day Vietnam than the America of a century ago. The so-called "mainstream" media has increasingly become an unofficial arm of the Obama administration and to a lesser degree the democrat party in general.


U.S. Funded ($20 Million) Pakistani Sesame Street Cancelled Amid Corruption Allegations

Americans Who Pay Taxes Paid for THIS!
With each passing day, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the United States of America is no longer a global superpower, or a global any kind of power. The good ole' U.S. of A. has been broken and co-opted, and there's no hope for fixing it. Most Americans know that their nation is badly in debt, and close to half recognize that even in the best-case scenario, it would take 4-6 generations to pay off all of the money the rogue government has spent (it's really not accurate to refer to it as "our" government, because it does not represent Americans' best interests). However, that will not happen, as there will likely be some sort of drastic military intervention by the Sino-Russian coalition with an assist from Iran and Venezuela, not to mention Mexico's gangs.

For anyone reading this that may be still in denial, consider the following story --- and I couldn't make this up if I had the imagination of Dr. Seuss, and I don't. This really happened.

The U.S. announced June 05, 2012 that it would be terminating $20 MILLION in funding earmarked for the development of a Pakistani version of Sesame Street amid allegations of corruption and abuse involving the production of the children's television program.

Of the $20 million, $6.7 million was actually spent on the series. $6.7 million of money earned by American taxpayers, then taken from them at gunpoint by the government, which thought nothing of giving it to the country that for years following 9/11 harbored Osama Bin Laden.

I'm not sure what's worse: The fact that the United States government, which is widely expected to undergo a complete economic collapse that will closely model that of Greece in the next 12-36 months, or that the alleged fraud and abuse involved allegations that pale in comparison to the money laundering, embezzlement and fraud that makes up the corps of the Democrat party. For those of you who are bona fide ignoramuses, the democrats steal money from taxpayers, give it to unions and human organ and stem cell-harvesting farms (Planned Parenthood) where live people are killed for profit, with the organizations receiving the stolen/embezzled money fraudulently filed with the IRS as 501-C3 tax exempt charities even though there is not a single person in the United States that could argue with a straight face that they're anything other than hyper-partisan political lobbying groups, which by law should NOT be tax-exempt. These lobbyists (the unions, abortionists and "leaders" of the various parasite communities) then launder the money by giving it back to the democrats who stole it from the people that earned it under the auspices of forceful taking of other property, life and/or freedom should the legitimate owner of the money refuse to hand it over to the bullies.

Yet when those that harbor the terrorists the democrats so admire --- these same democrats who launder money forcefully confiscated from its rightful owners only to funnel it back to the democrats' campaign funds without being taxed along the way --- have the audacity to act as though the Pakistanis are doing something that they themselves don't do on a scale thousands of times larger than the petty $20 million for Sim Sim Hamara.

Not that the Republicans are a whole lot better. They may not be actively laundering money and embezzling the way the democrats do, but they do look the other way while they do it. They (elected Republicans) also lack the testicular fortitude to publicly accuse them of the very crimes they commit out in the open for everyone to see, creating this massive, latent gay Republican elephant in the room (no offense to gays -  just using the term to illustrate the hypocrisy) that is the refusal to criminally indict, much less acknowledge the existence nor the severity of the criminal acts being committed by the President, his cabinet, and members of the U.S. House and Senate like Charles Shumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Joseph Biden and countless others who a century ago would have all been beheaded for treason without one single exception.

They control the world's most dominant military, and as much as we'd like to think of ourselves capable of invoking our Second-Amendment right to overthrow them, it's just not realistic to expect any --- even a miniscule measure of success were the militia to go on the offensive.

The nation's founders did not envision satellite technology and the capability to wipe out a quarter of the earth from a weapon permanently fixated in orbit ready to strike on a moment's notice. Nor the they envision fighter jets, which is far more than it would take to quell (kill) the 10 million or so Americans who actually care enough to fight for their freedom.

Wake up America! There is no voting our way out of this mess. One option may be slightly less treasonous than the other, but they're both headed down the same path and neither seems interested in taking a detour.

If Americans really cared about freedom, they'd all stop working at once, and remain unemployed or for the business owners keeping their companies in a temporary suspended state in which no business is conducted for as many years as it takes for the 537-horned monster in Washington to starve to death.

If you don't work, you don't earn any money. If you earn no money, you don't pay taxes, you receive them. Those who pay into the system and are ultimately responsible for enabling and supporting the aforementioned monster  (I'm guilty too) must all simultaneously put the shoe on the opposite foot, declaring unemployment all-at-once, and attempting to collect our confiscated funds in the same form that the parasites have been siphoning it away from us for decades.

If there is even one grain of sand's worth of hope on the beach that is America and its standing as a free society and a world power, it is the working class (not the unemployed parasites who claim to be the "working man" even though they do not work and have not in years) joining together in a coordinated strike against their government (it's definitely not ours) in which we disable the mechanism by and through which they take our money and use it against us.

As much as this lifetime NRA member hates to say it, our guns and ammo are worth only the value of the metal. As a check to balance government's power the 2nd Amendment no longer serves its purpose, which is why if this is not done now (if every taxpaying citizen and undocumented immigrant) stops working tomorrow or at the very latest next week (or next year, as soon as we can get everyone to agree to do it, which is about as likely as me picking one grain of sand off the beach and it being the only one that is different from the others), we will end up being killed by Russian, Chinese and/or United Nations "peacekeeping forces", while our wives and daughters are raped, our sons carved up and served to the troops who killed us and raped our women before killing them too.

Sound a bit too gloomy to be real? Oh how I wish that was actually the case.

Perhaps a look at Pakistani Sesame Street, compliments of the 8 weeks you didn't get to spend with your family because you were working to pay for Sim Sim Hamara may help convince you of the dire reality of the situation as it pertains to the imminent demise of the U.S. and its citizens.