Its clear we all need to know more about the Justice Department, particularly when they consider that this is a completely appropriate action.

The subpoena from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

Get that? ALL information from EVERYONE that visited the site on June 25 of last year.

It gets worse though.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Indymedia, a left-wing website, relied on lawyers from Electronic Frontier Foundation to respond to the DOJ, listing a number of problems with the subpoena.

...it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.

Moreover, the Justice Departments own rules require approval from the U.S. Attorney General where the media is concerned. Apparently neither Eric Holder or acting AG Mark Filip were aware of the subpoena, which was subsequently withdrawn.

Sounds like a comedy of errors, but the implications are chilling--the Obama administration apparently has a DOJ staffed with lawyers who have no regard at all for first amendment rights. I'm not sure which is scarier--that they didn't know the law and DOJ policy, or that they thought they could strong arm a small aggregator website into divulging private information about every visitor to a site. Its a bright-line issue and this can only be construed as an abuse of power.

Those involved should be fired.

Just in case any DOJ staff are reading this blog--we don't log IP addresses either.

Gun sales are through the roof.

All over America demand for firearms and ammunition is rising amid concerns that rising unemployment, which passed 10 per cent this month, will lead inexorably to higher rates of crime. Fears of terrorism have also helped to lift demand, as have concerns among gun owners that the Obama Administration may introduce restrictions on gun ownership and impose additional taxes.

That's not the reason.

A half-dozen of my friends have shown off recent purchases of pistols and AR-15s. Two of them bought their guns on election day last year. None of them was motivated by fear of crime.

It was fear of Democrats.

Everybody single one of them made their purchase because the Democrats had come to power in Washington and there is every expectation that there will be an assault on gun ownership by fair means or foul.

I've never been much of a gun guy myself, in fact I sold my shot guns in the last couple of years and am currently 'gunless'. Yet, I find myself wondering whether I shouldn't invest in some weaponry and learn how to use it after finding myself alarmed at the Democrats jackboot-style of government, made all the more alarming when you consider how much squealing they did about the Patriot Act.

Let me see that AR-15 again please...

The Democrats attacks on the 2nd amendment have been a tradition going back as far as I can remember. Assurances to the contrary are, well, lies designed to mitigate the wrath of an electorate enamored of its rights to bear arms.

Now its the first amendment's turn.

It is understandable that the administration has secrets and wants to keep them. But this campaign to flush out sources has the feel of chest-thumping and intimidation. It is one thing to protect information that might put Americans in danger or undermine national security; it is another to bring cases against whistle-blowers and others who divulge information to spur debate and raise questions about public policy.

Its a pretty scary thing when the Justice Department comes calling, and expensive too, which is the point. Its just easier to roll over and make them go away than defend one's rights at great personal cost.

The pretext of national security is dubious just on the basis of the Democrat's delight with leaks during the Bush administration. The Obama administration's efforts to disenfranchise Fox News (as an example) deepens suspicions that a larger strategy is at play.

Well, if you thought that, you'd be right. The kind of total transformation Obama promised if elected requires a major shift in public attitudes. Americans, like citizens of other socialist countries, must place their confidence in government institutions to resolve their personal and community issues. Only in that way can the ruling class exercise the kind of power that they apparently believe to be their birthright.

We have of course heard familiar rhetoric about evil oil companies, evil Fox News, and the general anointing as devil spawn anyone that consistently obstructs the Democrat's socialist agenda. That's easy to do whether in or out of power. Yet it has only been recently that Democrats have had the opportunity to exercise what we'll euphemistically call a positive campaign to engender trust and confidence in government.

Well that's a problem. Just as public corporations are perfectly willing to screw their customers in the name of their shareholders, government bureaucracies are just as willing to screw the citizens for their shareholders--which isn't us, but rather their political and union masters. Creating confidence in that dysfunctional mess isn't going to happen naturally and so a little help is needed.

PR spin.

If you can't actually do your job right, you can always fall back on spinning your performance by taking credit and assigning blame. Of course, when you're the government, you have advantage over large corporations in that you can actually prosecute people--threatening them with the loss of their freedom and confiscation of their assets (well, corporations have at least a limited ability to do this as well...).

The 1st amendment is a huge obstacle to the Democrat's plans to remake the country in France's image, and so therefore must be challenged and undermined wherever possible.

That constitution thing is just a great big hassle for the oh-so-smart people that want to run everything. Don't worry though--they'll be big fans of the 1st amendment again when once again have a Republican President.