Oh, wait, that was someone else. Bob Waters doesn’t believe him either.

ABC News reports that the majority of Americans support Alito and support Roe v. Wade being upheld.

At the same time, this ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that six in 10 would want Alito, if confirmed, to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion-rights case.

The chart accompanying this story says that 35% want Roe overturned. So much for that position being “out of touch” with mainstream America. One of every three people you see walking down the street wants Roe to be overturned, and most probably even think of that to mean “make abortion illegal” which is really not what it would do.

What I also found fascinating was that those who claimed to go to church monthly are not any different than the population at large, regarding Roe, and even those weekly church goers only favor overturning Roe by slightly more than half (54%). And 27% of Democrats want Roe overturned.

Interesting stuff.

Akshay Patil, a Google employee who runs the blog Techwalla, has released a great little tool for Google Talk called PartyChat. It allows multiple users in one chat session! Finally!

Details here. Nice work Akshay.

Here is Jamie Gorelick in 1994.

“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”

Here is a quote from an executive order (12949) by Bill Clinton on Feb. 9, 1995.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (”Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

And Jimmy Carter signed executive order 12139 on May 23, 1979, stating:

Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Via Drudge.

J.A.Kowing: “Wait a minute! If Democratic Presidents Clinton and Carter can do illegal surveillance on citizens of the United States without everybody throwing a big fat hissy fit, then why can’t Republican President Bush? ”

Espella Humanzee: “These liberals we battle aren’t worth the two cent lies they tell.”

Don Acker: “Don’t think I need to say too much about this? Their argument’s gone.”

Kilmer: “It’s not the juvenile: “See, the Dems did illegal spying too!” No. The argument is that there are circumstances in which it is both legal and necessary to surveil without a warrant. Obtaining a warrant would obliviate the opportunity to obtain the vital information, and the search is reasonable.”

Voting Purple points out that Abe Lincoln even suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

College Conservative: “Apparently it’s only bad when a republican president does it.”

Blackfive: “This is the same Jamie Gorelick who implemented a wholesale build up of the wall preventing FBI and CIA from sharing intel. Even she believes that the President, to be able to function, must have this authority and that it stems from the Constitution. It’s hard to imagine a more compelling case for surveilling associates of known jihadis, than when W did, right after 9/11.”

Political Pitbull: “It’s irresponsible, and frankly, disgusting.”

Peat Bog: “They weren’t even just talking about wiretaps, which is what all this flap is about. Gorelick claimed to have the power to raid someone’s house without a warrant if it had ‘foreign intelligence purposes’.”

Pilgrim: “You are not going to convince the Anti-American citizens to change their minds, they just want to play a tit for tat game with this President. Let them rant and target your wrath to the Congressmen and Senators in your districts and states. Hammer them to investigate the leak of this program to the New York Crimes/Washington Boast. THAT is the real crime here.”

Michelle Malkin sees hypocrisy in Jim McDermott complaining about the NSA’s warrantless surveillance.

Mike: “What’s this? Not only Clinton, but Carter too believed he could use warrantless wiretaps to keep tabs on terrorists? We were living in a POLICE STATE, a DICTATORSHIP and we didn’t even know it!”

Leffingwell: “reasonable people can differ over the correct place to draw the line between civil liberties and national security in wartime. Fair enough. However, the disgusting hypocrisy displayed by the left (not to mention their heinous politicization of our security and defense) clearly excludes them from the “reasonable people” category, doesn’t it?”

The Transit Works have a blog, which was getting pounded with comments yesterday. They subsequently struck the comments, as most were not favorable. Joe’s Dartblog brought ‘em back here. Just another reminder that you can’t truly erase anything on the web. Glen’s got more.

PS. Dawn Eden would be pround of this post’s headline. ;-)

Looks like Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has been editing his own biography on the site. 18 times.