Just because you saved a life doesn't mean you didn't break the law.  If I accept the extreme premise that it's OK to break the law in order to save a life, it doesn't mean the law wasn't broken.  Though the life of Bowe Bergdahl, in this instance, is questionable in terms of its loyalty, both to our country and our culture, I don't deny the life was saved.  Yet, the law was factually broken to do so. 

It matters not if some say this has happened before, with precedent.  That doesn't negate the law was broken.  Neither saving a life nor prior precedent nullifies the effect of law. 

Disregarding even the compound effect that the law Barack Obama broke was the law Obama signed into law, all we have to know is that the law is effectual regardless of reason why it was broken.  It just makes it worse that Obama broke Obama's law.   He has no excuse at all. 

It wasn't a Bush law or Republican law, but a law he signed because he wanted to sign it.  But even if it were a Bush Law or Republican law, it's still the law.  The Executive Branch is the branch responsible for enforcing the law, through the military and Department of Justice, not to mention the many agencies who enforce law and policy everywhere. 

But even this, that the Executive Branch broke the law, is not the issue, it is merely the glaring apex of lawlessness.  For if the Executive Branch breaks the law with impunity and disregard, who will not? 

So, no matter the argument, Obama broke the law, and the punishment for that stands.  It first must start with impeachment, but this is not the punishment for breaking the law.  Impeachment is necessary because the President has the power to pardon himself.  However, the President has the power to pardon only after someone is convicted, not before.  Otherwise, to pardon before a trial is to release a suspect without cause, and this too is a crime. 

So, if the President commits a crime and does not prosecute himself, but pardons himself; that is another crime.  This is different than Nixon, who denied any wrongdoing until the very end.  Obama is not denying wrongdoing.  He is claiming you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  He is making a reason for breaking the law, for making the omelet.  That's fine. 

The reason, valid or not, is given.  Now the law must take effect.  He did break the eggs.  First, impeachment must take place to remove him from the office, which protects him from prosecution. 

Then, prosecution.  And if the federal prosecutors refuse, then one by one each of them must be impeached or otherwise relieved of duty until we get to the person who will follow the procedures of the law. 

If Obama is innocent, let a trial determine that.  It cannot be that Obama says that Obama is innocent, and that's that. 

Our culture has become very laissez-faire on the concept of multiplicity of values. Yet, if we decide that the punishment of law has no effect when the law is broken for good cause, the law is not useful nor fair, but is rather, at its maximum potential, an overt bludgeon used only against political and ideological enemies and disregarded when it involves political and ideological friends. 

So let's assume Obama saved a life by breaking the law.  Hurrah.  He still broke the law.  To save the integrity of the law, and law in general, and the Executive Branch, Obama must face the consequences, and we must not allow anyone to say that the punishment for breaking the law is negated or to be ignored simply because it was in the path of doing a good deed. 

For it is that Obama did not have to break this law to save a life.  He could have informed Congress and given them 30 days to mull it over.  He could have asked for a waiver on that law this one time, with the permission of Congress.  He could have bargained with some chip other than Guantanamo detainees.  He could have tried a rescue mission a la Entebbe. 

Thus, with many options, we cannot say that Obama had to jaywalk, to break a law, in order to save a child in oncoming traffic, to save a life.  In fact, he had plenty of time and options. 

And... this is not jaywalking.  This is breaking a federal law. 

And... for a poke in the eye, HIS federal law

And... for a poke in the eye, to save the life of a man who is possibly a traitor to the United States

And... for a poke in the eye, 5 detainees for one soldier

And... for a poke in the eye, and to move the Overton Window on a fat and lazy society, cowardly to do anything about it, intentionally breaking the law. 

Why would someone do this or think they could do this?  I believe it is to get us indoctrinated into arbitrary lawbreaking by a powerful government.  This Bergdahl incident is not the first time Obama has done this.  That ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has openly been told to leave the illegal aliens alone, and that these illegals are being fed at the border and basically released into society, and not prosecuted when any of them openly brag of their non-immigration status, is also thumb-in-the-eye lawlessness. 

Let's not forget the Internal Revenue Service lawlessly pursuing political enemies, or the Fast and Furious hearings in quicksand due to lawless refusal to produce documents.  These are not mistakes nor hard choices made.  This is an intentional pattern of lawlessness meant to break down the American psyche to accept big government fascism. 

This is 1984, where double-speak matters and different classes are treated in different ways to create and sustain an agenda.  The agenda is not 100% clear, but it appears to be a collusion with Russia and China to rule the world in a hard-fist feudalism.  However, whether I am right or wrong about that agenda, or even if there is no agenda after all, or even if I'm crazy... Obama broke the law…  Federal law…  His law...  A serious law with serious penalties. Now, what are you going to do about it?

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.