The Battle of Athens, Tenn. 1946 is the Origin of U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Report on Rightwing Extremist Slamming U.S. Veterans and Second Amendment Advocates!
U.S. Department of Homeland Security “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. [page 2]
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool. [page 6]
Don Hamrick’s paper, The Battle of Athens, Tennesee, August 1-2, 1946.
The Battle of Athens is based on my own research at the library in Athens, Tennessee. World War II veterans returning home to Athens, Tennessee (McMinn County) returned to a despotic, tyrannical Democratic machine of a State and county government. Some of the veterans decided to run for local and county offices to vote the sheriff and other town and county officials out of office. The election escalated into an overnight gun battle between the sheriff and his deputies and the candidates and the town’s people.
It is my shear speculation that the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is terrified of civil unrest or rebellion resulting from continued operation of the United States Government outside the limits of the Constitution.
Another note from history:
U.S. Senator Claude Pepper from Florida entered into the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record Congressional Record, 79th Congress, 2nd Session; August 1, 1946; Pages A4750-A4753, “The Public Responsibilities of an Educated Citizen,” Thursday, August 1 (legislative day of Monday, July 29), 1946. I include excerpts from his entry:
Mr. PEPPER. “Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the RECORD a very able address entitled ‘The Public Responsibilities of an Educated Citizen,’ delivered by Angus McKenzie Laird, associate professor of political science at the University of Florida, to the graduating class of the summer session of the University of Florida on August 27, 1943, in which he paid high and deserved tribute to my predecessor in the United States Senate, the beloved late Senator Duncan U. Fletcher.
. . .
“Twenty-three centuries ago, the philosopher Plato, an unfriendly critic, held that in a democracy the people did not recognize that their duties were equal to their rights. By insistence upon their rights, and by neglecting their duties, they paved the way for the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of tyranny. One need not accept Plato’s views as to the inevitability of this process from democracy to tyranny, in order to agree that we must meet our duties and responsibilities as well as enjoy our rights and liberties if our democratic society is to survive. This great truth has been recognized in a number of constitutions of national states. The French Constitution of 1793 not only contained the famous “Declaration of the rights of Man,” but had a list of the duties of man as well. The most recent Constitution of the Soviet Union not only has a bill of rights but has a bill of duties as well. Our constitutional forefathers were fully cognizant of the truth that every right implied a duty. However, our Constitution was based upon somewhat different principles from those of the French Constitution of 1793 and the Russian Constitution of 1935. Our Bill of Rights was added, not in order that the people might know their rights, but that the Government might not infringe upon them. It was assumed that the people would know their duties as they knew their rights. Yet, I fear this has not always been realized, and unfortunately “duty” appears almost to have become an outworn term. One should not be surprised if in the next edition of Webster, he finds after the definition of the word “archaic.” In almost all the textbooks on civics and political science, and in all the texts in social science without exception, which you have used in high school and college, you will find at least one chapter on our rights, but never one on our duties. Consequently, I think it not improper that in your final college lecture, you should hear something of your public responsibilities as an educated citizen. “
. . .
Finally an educated citizen has the responsibility to obey and respect the law. I do not mean that you should take a “pollyanna” view of the law, that all laws are good and fair and just and [blindly?] should obey all of them at all times and under all circumstances. Some laws are unfair, some are unwise, some are impractical; others are in conflict, and still others, while considered fair and equitable at one time, have become archaic and inapplicable to modern conditions. But law is the basis of our social order and no great society in which the people enjoyed a good life has yet existed which did not have a legal foundation and a respect for law.
I recognize that there have been times in the past in which a man was morally and ethically justified in violating the law. If there had never been men who dared to violate the law for high principle and great ends, we might still have the divine right of kings, we might be subjects of the British Crown, and we would probably have slavery. The men who overthrew divine right monarchs and those who gained independence for America did so at the risk of their lives. There may be instances today and there will probably be instances in the future in which lawbreaking may be morally and ethically justified.
“But,” one is likely to say, “how can one obey all the laws, the rules and regulations, when it is not possible for one person to know them all?“ That is a reasonable question. There must be many cases where this is true. There are many respectable citizens in certain professions or lines of business who cannot possibly find the time to learn and understand all the laws that apply to them. Although ignorance of the law does not excuse them legally, one cannot hold such persons ethically and morally guilty. This is true if their ignorance of the law is not used as an excuse rather than as an explanation for failure to comply with the law. We have the responsibility to respect the law even though we may not always know what the law is and be able to comply with it.
There are some in high position who believe that the importance of their work justifies their disregard for a law which the common run of people ought to obey. The 35 miles per hour traffic law is a necessary one, they think, but their own time is so valuable and their mission so important to society that they have no hesitation in making 70.
I wonder how many small-time chiselers and antisocial or disloyal persons justify their actions not on moral or ethical grounds, but by the example furnished by some one in authority who believes himself to be above the law.
It is my opinion that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is intended to protect the U.S. Government’s future intention to act above the law by demonizing and villifying the American people who act in defense of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.” Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956).
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946