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 Apparently neither Eric Holder or acting AG Mark Filip were aware of the subpoena, which was subsequently withdrawn.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...