I bring you a Friday breakdown of President Obama’s speech today, concentrated primarily on the NSA scandals and policies. I’ve helpfully included my interpretations of Obama’s inner monologue during the speech, which can’t help but be spot on. I even put a framed picture of Michelle on my desk and pretended to play basketball to assure accuracy in my mindset. (President Obama’s innermost thoughts can be found italicized in the speech excerpts)

This is a long article due to the inclusions of lengthy excerpts from the speech, and my subsequent brief rebuttals. Hopefully it provides enlightening and amusing to even out the frustration that liberty-minded folk feel whenever this man speaks, and especially when he’s trying to defend some of the most egregious attacks on personal liberty and privacy that this country has experienced to date.

Obama begins with some long winded history lesson on the importance of information-gathering, all of which can be ignored so we can proceed to the meat of the speech.

Regarding intelligence gathering and US policies towards it:

The horror of September 11th brought all these issues to the fore. Across the political spectrum, Americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in a basement and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away (That should scare them back into submission – 9/11!! Unseen terrorist forces!! Threats everywhere, stealing your babies and electric grids!). We were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks, how the hijackers had made phone calls to known extremists and traveled to suspicious places. So we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen than prosecuting terrorists after an attack. Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with and follow the trail of his travel or his funding. New laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded and our capacity to repel cyber attacks have been strengthened. And taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocent lives — not just here in the United States, but around the globe. (Hopefully no one researches that statement, which my very own Director of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, stated was false, since there is very little evidence that any of our spying has thwarted even a single terrorist plot.) And yet, in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach, the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced. We saw in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 our government engage in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. As a senator, I was critical of several practices, such as warrantless wiretaps. And all too often new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate. (Yes, play down how much you flip flopped on domestic spying, Big B! I have now completely turned my position around like the weasel politician I have revealed myself to be, but at least I know MSNBC won’t call me out on that.) Through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time I took office (Whew, didn’t have to give Bush any credit. Note to self: find way to blame more things on Bush that were my bad ideas). But a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties. (I have worked DILIGENTLY to reverse this and further push the liberty-infringing policies of the government while trampling the constitution, but where’s my credit for that? Maybe I’ll just write a commendation in Sharpie on my Nobel Peace Prize…) For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy skepticism toward our surveillance programs after I became president. I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers. And in some cases, I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we’ve sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities. (Maybe we should have told them we were also spying on them…nah) To the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job, one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. They’re not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your emails. (I have no evidence of this, however the entire history of the world dictates that I am wholly wrong in this, going back hundreds of years, where those in power have abused it. Remember the TSA’s professionalism and non-abuse of its access to nude images? That worked out smashingly. Obviously, something involving a far grander scale and far less oversight due to secret can ONLY prove to break with historical precedent.) When mistakes are made — which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise, they correct those mistakes, laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friends (WON’T THESE SOTS THINK OF OUR POOR GOVERNMENT SPOOKS!? They have to live vicariously through reading your emails, texts and listening to your phone calls to your loved ones to get any human interaction!) — the men and women at the NSA know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber attack occurs, they will be asked by Congress and the media why they failed to connect the dots. What sustains those who work at NSA and our other intelligence agencies through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation. Now, to say that our intelligence community follows the law and is staffed by patriots is not to suggest that I or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. Those of us who hold office in America have a responsibility to our Constitution (See, I mentioned it! I know it exists, now get off my back!). And while I was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place. Moreover, after an extended review in the use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks (which was forced upon me by multiple violations of the Constitution by the public at large and Rand Paul’s filibuster in the Senate, but I’ll pretend it was my own idea), I believe a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open-ended war footing that we’ve maintained since 9/11. (I also was forced into this due to the ‘heroic’ acts of Edward Snowden who blew the top off of this crapfest) Given the fact of an open investigation, I’m not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or his motivations. I will say that our nation’s defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we might not fully understand for years to come. (Man, what a jerk, right? I mean if you are hired to do a job working for the country you love, and you’re asked to betray the very principles this country was founded upon, you DO IT, without raising any questions!)

Skipping forward…

… Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data and use it for commercial purposes. That’s how those targeted ads pop up on your computer and your smartphone periodically. (we also buy that information from them, or force them to provide it to us, FYI. We also passed a real doozy of a bill called CISPA, which hopefully no one reads about. So we’re all aboard with these guys. Full steam ahead, Toot toot!) But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us. We won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. (Despite my earlier statements to the contrary, ignoring this fact) Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power. (Laws which I try to circumvent whenever possible with my magic pen of executive orders!) Now, fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculating and hypotheticals, this review process has given me, and hopefully the American people, some clear direction for change. And today I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress. First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities…

That’s just what we need! More presidential oversight, because everything Obama has touched has just turned out spiffy! Stay golden, Obamacare.

It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances, our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team. (That same security team that had no problem with any of the existing policies we had in place before this all blew up in our faces. We want to make sure we get a good “new” look at this, wink-wink.) Second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of U.S. persons. Since we began this review, including information being released today, we’ve declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which provides judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities, including the Section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the Section 215 telephone metadata program. (Since we don’t need that information to stay classified, you can now have it, as you pretty much know all about it anyway from Eddie “Jerkwad” Snowden. But don’t you try to get any more information about stuff that we’re working on now or in the future.) To ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I’m also calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (However, none of those advocates will be able to share their opinions outside the court, and none of you peons will be allowed to know any of the cases, outcomes or implications of these court hearings, since it’s all top secret.)

Skipping forward…

Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on what’s called national security letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. Now, these are cases in which it’s important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. But we can and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority. I’ve therefore directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite, so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. (This need of course will be determined by the internal organization utilizing the letters, without knowledge of the subject, thus cannot be challenged or known about. What’s the point? I don’t even know what this will do, but damn if it doesn’t sound impressive!) This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months, the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke. This program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provide a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls, metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization. In sum, the program does not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans. Rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific lead, a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retain for business purposes. The review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused, and I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved.

Skipping forward…

…For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata. This will not be simple. The review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single consolidated database would be carrying out what’s essentially a government function, but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability, all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.

Well, at least they’re smart enough to realize that simply giving the data to a 3rd party solves nothing in regards to what this entire thing represents.

Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization, instead of the current three, and I have directed the attorney general to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency.

Of course these calls and steps are taken on suspected terrorists, or just you or me, without our knowledge, before we’re accused of anything. More info on the former 3-hop system here.

Now, the reforms I’m proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected…

Haaahahahaha oh man, Barack, all those appearances on the Daily Show and Saturday Night Live have done wonders for your sense of humor!

..even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. And I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. For example, some who participated in our review, as well as some members of Congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of national security letters, so we have to go to a judge each time before issuing these requests. (Over my dead body! That would be reasonable and Constitutionally sound, two things I detest more than bowling!)

Obama then goes on to discuss how much the US has pissed off foreign leaders by spying on them, but this is long enough as it is. Full transcript here.

In summation, Obama “addressed” the issue without actually doing anything to address the issue. Like many other speeches he has given, he promises to review the information and make changes, but all of this happens behind closed doors with general, misty plans that either don’t come to fruition, or come to a conclusion that results in virtually no change. This isn’t a dismantling of anything, this isn’t a policy change (with exception to the two vs three hop surveillance) -it’s just rubbish. Rand Paul echoes my own thoughts here:

“I don’t want them collecting the information,” Paul said on CNN. “It’s not about who holds it.” In his statement, he added that he felt Obama’s solution “is the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.”

Rand also had the day’s best zing: “I think what I heard is that if you like your privacy you can keep it.” (Source)

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!