The Insurrectionists

New California State has been warning us for over 8 years about the California “Insurrectionist”.

Gavin Newson, Alex Padilla, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Ted Lu, 

Xavier Bacerra, Jerry Brown, Shirley Weber, Arnold Schwarzenegger numerous California County  Clerk Recorders, California State Legislature and the list is growing.  Yes these are just a “few” of the California Insurrectionist who have brought the Golden State to the verge of “state” succession.  You can read it, we can all say it, we can all admit to it “state” succession. 

Not since the Civil War of 1861-1865 have these words been so used and so misunderstood by the people.  But the insurrectionist know exactly what they’re doing and where they want the United States to go.

Most people when they read these words don’t have any idea what they mean, the historical consequences of the use of the words in the context of recent events and the damage these words and their continued use tied into the insurrectionist’s behavior’s will do to the United States of America.

WATCH

Paul Preston, Governor Pro Tempore of New California State. "Insurrectionist" Speech

June 17, 2025 State Capitol Sacramento, CA

The Founding Fathers knew to well what these words and allied behaviors by those who were enemies of the United States. 

In the Declaration of Independence the Founder’s wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The Founder’s state as one of their fundamental Grievances in the Declaration: 

He (the King) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In the United States Constitution Article IV, Section 4 known as the “Guarantee” Clause the Founders state:  

Section 4 “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

“A Republican form of government” expresses the Founders disgust for and disdain of “democracy.”  

Unfettered democracy is mob rule, with no protection for the rights and interests of individuals or minority groups.  

As Madison says so beautifully in Federalist #10, democracies “...have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”  

This portion of the guarantee clause ensures the protection of the minority interests of the inhabitants of all the states, by guaranteeing a republic – that form of government based on laws and principles that no majority (or super-majority) vote can overturn.  They were also attempting to prevent the inclusion of monarchist, collectivist, or socialist forms of government.  Private property – and individual rights based on property (starting with one’s own body) – cannot be protected under any system that denies the existence – or the morality – of individual, private property. 

“Shall protect each of them against Invasion,” at the time of its writing the Founders were thinking of Great Britain, Spain, French-Canadian, and Indian incursions – yet they knew full well that time would bring new threats.  

This clause works with Article I, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power to call forth the militia to “repel Invasions.”  Madison writes in Federalist #43 “...protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it...”  They were also concerned that a President from, say, South Carolina, would favor protecting his home state of South Carolina in an attack and send all military forces to protect that state, even if both Vermont and South Carolina were under attack. 

From 2021 to 2025 during the Biden era it is obvious to anyone willing to observe disinterested fact that the Federal government absolutely, unequivocally, and utterly abrogated its duty to the states by refusing to secure our borders against those entering this country illegally.  Whether the purpose is “a better life,” “escape from oppression,” or the intention to carry out nefarious attacks against our citizens, states, country, and sovereignty, does not matter.  It is the duty of the Federal government to protect the states against invasion. 

It is the duty of Congress to find appropriate ways to address the legitimate desires of non-Americans to come here legally; see Article 1, Section 8, clause 4.) 

The Biden administration went to the ridiculous lengths of bringing lawsuits in Federal courts to stop actions taken by states to protect themselves.  They also showed their utter lack of knowledge of the Constitution by bringing these suits in Federal District Courts, even though the Constitution clearly states in Article III, Section 2, 2nd paragraph that “[i]n all cases... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”  Any judge with even the flimsiest understanding of (and respect for) the Constitution should throw such cases out of court.  Any that do not do so should be removed from office by impeachment, as they have broken their oath to uphold the Constitution (or demonstrated their unfitness to hold office through ignorance of that which they have sworn to uphold). 

This leaves us with the issue of states suffering from repeated invasion that the federal government refuses to address.  Are the states required just to sit there and be overrun?  NO!  Remember, the states retain sovereignty and have the right (and the duty!) to call out their militias to protect themselves.  Article 1, Section 10, last clause, states, “[n]o state shall... keep troops... or engage in war, unless actually invaded...” demonstrating very clearly that the states retain the right and ability to call forth their militias to repel invasions.  Hamilton even declares, in Federalist #29, “...it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring state should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy...” so it would be perfectly permissible and Constitutional for Arizona and California to join forces to protect their southern borders.  Not only that, but if Nebraska found itself facing a raft of ills due to the presence of illegal aliens, IT could send its militia to Arizona, too!  

Admittedly, the Founders thought the most likely common enemy of the states would (eventually) be the federal government.  Madison addresses this directly in Federalist #46 and he does not counsel the states to acquiesce and become subservient; no, he describes various types of non-violent resistance methods to be used by a state or combination of states.  However, should the federal government become so outrageous that it sends the army against the states, he speaks directly of the use of the armed citizenry and the state militia to resist.  He also posits this as being highly unlikely to happen because of the requirement for “a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”  

Mr. Madison was spared the sight of today’s federal government, refusing its duty to protect, and actually taking offensive actions against states endeavoring to require the federal government to do its duty, and to protect themselves in the absence of federal aid. 

As for the very last clause in this section, it establishes limits for when the federal government may come in to a state to protect it against domestic violence.  The federal government is not allowed to send troops into a state on its own estimation that domestic violence is occurring (or about to occur).  It must wait until the state legislature requests federal assistance.  If that legislature is not in session and cannot be quickly called into session, then the governor of that state may make the request.  We’ve seen a recent example of this clause in action recently – during and immediately after Hurricane Katrina.  Then-President Bush was widely vilified for his delay in sending the National Guard to assist Louisiana with its troubles during and after the hurricane.  Yet he could not legally act until the request for assistance was made (he even called both officials on 8/28, asking them to request federal aid – they refused)!  There was certainly plenty of incompetence and blame to spread in the aftermath of that storm (especially FEMA’s poor efforts) – but let us at least be honest that this was not a dastardly attempt on the part of President Bush to drown the Ninth Ward.  Katrina was one of the largest, most powerful (Category 5), most long-lasting storms ever to hit the mainland.  It made landfall in an area that is horribly vulnerable to flooding, and is protected by a levee system built to protect it from a Category 3 hurricane and which had a long backlog of remedial repairs needed.  No matter what the response on the local, state, and federal levels, Katrina would have done just as much physical damage.  The federal government was not in charge of evacuations, could not order or enforce mandatory evacuations, or assist the local personnel with evacuations.  Any person remaining in the Lower Ninth Ward was at risk, and there was no recourse once the storm hit.  After the storm, there was plenty of mismanagement and incompetence on all those same fronts:  local, state, and federal.  Yet the fact remains, federal aid could not be sent in until it was requested by the state of Louisiana.