Mayor Sharon Kalani Morning Meeting at Torrance Bakery (Full Videos)

 

Mayor Kalani wouldn't provide specifics about how she would bring in more police officers. She stated during the campaign that the previous mayor had failed to bring in more police officers. I wanted to know what specifically the previous mayor had failed to do, and she wouldn't speak to that.

On a positive note, she announced her opposition to red light camera ticketing and all the other schemes.

Big win! This is great, and I sense that this whole scheme is going to crash and burn. Don't let this issue slip by!

She provided everyone an opportunity to introduce themselves. Some of the people attending the meeting were city commissioners. I think that more residents should be attending. With all due respect, I think that commissioners attending is not the most representative for the city.

This was a bigger discussion, for sure. The deadline for filling councilwoman-turned-mayor Kalani's seat on the council was today at 5:00pm.

The city council will appoint the next councilmember on August 25th, 2026.

I brought up that the city needs to change the charter and the process so that the voters get to choose the next city councilmember. It's unfair for the city council to make the first choice and set up the successor with an election advantage on the council.

Either we allow a special election to fill the seat, or we should change the policy so that whoever is appointed cannot run for election for a full term. I am open to other suggestions, but this is wrong.

I recall in 2014 how local leaders were hoping to put Ray Uchima in the seat. They had had numerous discussions behind the scenes to make this happen. It was really dirty. Ultimately, the city council appointed Mike Griffiths to fill the seat vacated by newly elected Pat Furey as mayor.

I am glad that Sharon wants to change this process, too, but we need to organize the elections so that the successor election will take place in November after the city elections in March. Those are my thoughts. Another lady at the meeting agreed with me that we should figure something out.

Homeless issues came up. If anyone wants to challenge the points made, I am listening. For my part, I am glad to see far fewer homeless people wandering and loitering about. There are still issues here and there, but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. Commissioners at this meeting also shared that the homeless moving into tiny housing have gotten care and training so that they move into housing and off the streets.

It costs less to replace sidewalk pieces than to clean them. Who knew? Is there another way to fix these issues?

Another resident asked why the city is taking control of all of Hawthorne Blvd. This is a big issue, but at least the city will have more say on how to run and clean and reorder the whole thoroughfare.

I have not been following the Hawthorne Metro takeover as closely as other issues, but the LA Metro Board has voted to shove this project onto our city, and there's nothing we can do about it ... so far.

There have been so many legal and political delays, however, that we may never (have to) see any Metro trains coming down Hawthorne Blvd. That works for me!

Rebecca: Flip-Flop Leftist in Wisconsin

 

RNC Statement on WI-03 Primary

Washington D.C. – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Joe Gruters released the following statement on Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District primary: “As a 26-year Navy SEAL, Derrick Van Orden has spent his life serving this country, and in Congress, he’s delivered for Wisconsin’s farmers, manufacturers, small businesses, and veterans. Rebecca Cooke built her career as a far-left Democrat fundraiser and political operative before manufacturing a phony ‘farm girl’ persona to fool Wisconsin voters. Republicans will expose Cooke’s working-class charade for what it is and send this coastal-elite-backed political operative packing in November.” Rebecca Cooke: Called her own hometown of Eau Claire “racist” Has been exposed as a longtime Democrat political operative Supported defunding the police Supports socialist NYC Mayor, Zohran Mamdani Endorsed by Bernie Sanders Called ICE “disgusting” and “wrong” Flip-flopped on conversion therapy Wants to take away rights from law-abiding gun owners Called her own hometown of Eau Claire “racist" Raked in thousands of dollars shaping the campaign of a leftist lunatic who fantasized about assassinating President Trump and Republicans Campaigned with the architect of sanctuary cities, Rahm Emanuel Endorsed by AFSCME, which sued the Trump administration to let illegal aliens have CDLs and aided businesses on how to evade ICE Endorsed by the NRDC, which pushes the Green New Scam Endorsed by WEAC, a teachers union backing sex changes for minors and supports allowing men to play in women’s sports Wants to sell Wisconsin farmland to China

Save California, Voter Guide for CA Propositions 2026

 

Hi Arthur, For the sake of your moral, social, fiscal, and constitutional values, here are SaveCalifornia.com's positions on California's 14 propositions on the November ballot. The short version: We encourage you to vote NO on most, except YES on Propositions 39, 41, 42, 43, and 45. SaveCalifornia.com has been helping moral-values Californians vote with confidence since 2000. Please share our info with your family and friends!

SaveCalifornia.com Recommendations on 14 California Ballot Propositions  NO Prop. 1: Would borrow and spend at least $13.75 BILLION (in loan and interest payments) for "affordable housing" projects. A bond is always more expensive than a tax. If the Democrat Party politicians who put this on the ballot really cared about our housing crisis, they'd repeal all the rules, regulations, and policies that suppress developers and jack up costs. NO Prop. 2: Would create a "slush fund" for more big-government spending by California's Democrat-Party-controlled State Legislature (which deceptively calls Prop. 2 a "rainy day fund"). This bad idea eliminates the current state spending limit and functionally denies taxpayers future tax rebates. NO Prop. 3: Would extend the highest-in-the-nation personal income tax, which has been hurting the economy, the state budget, personal responsibility, and individual merit. These higher taxes would unjustly punish a single filer with a marginal income tax rate of $361,000 and up (remember, these are the job providers), without any requirement to improve school performance. California's economy and job situation could improve if Prop. 3 is defeated. NO Prop. 4: Would permit state and local governments to provide candidates with taxpayer funds "under spending limits and eligibility rules." In addition to creating bigger and worse government, it opens the door to fraud. New York State's experiment with government-funded candidacies has been a failure. As NY election law expert Joseph T. Burns wrote last year, "Programs that funnel taxpayer dollars into political campaigns invite abuse, and scandals are not anomalies—they are the norm...For statewide campaigns, the amounts at stake will be exponentially higher, increasing the temptation for abuse. It is difficult to imagine that the system will not continue to attract candidates and operatives willing to game its rules for financial gain." NO Prop. 5: Would eliminate the successor election when a state officer is recalled, letting the governor decide. No, we want the people to decide who replaces the politician they just recalled. As Election Integrity Project California observes, "On the rare occasion when a recall of a sitting state Governor is qualified, it is the people's right not only to vote to oust the person in question, but to choose a replacement." NO Prop. 37: Would create a government-run, second-mortgage homebuyer program for qualified homebuyers to buy new construction or first sale of converted nonresidential property, priced below about $1 million–$1.5 million. The proposal would issue $25 BILLION IN bonds, which will purportedly be repaid by the homeowners' mortgage payments (but if they default, California taxpayers must pay the difference. Prop. 37 also establishes a cushy relationship with the Legislature and Governor, permitting them to amend the proposition in the future in ways that "are consistent with and further the purposes of" it. What's more, saying Prop. 37 solves California's housing crisis is like putting a band-aid on cancer. Instead, the elected officials backing Prop. 37 should support a) lower caps on what cities and counties can "charge" developers, b) eliminating environmental lawsuits against new housing, c) expelling illegal aliens, who are inflating house costs, and d) allowing logging to lower the price of lumber (and to prevent "monster" fires from developing and spreading). NO Prop. 38: Proposes a bond of at least $11 BILLION (loan plus interest) for "immunology and immunotherapy research." While this type of cutting-edge research is a worthy goal for treating cancer and other diseases, Prop. 38 deserves your opposition. Because it's another expensive, deceptive bond, which is always more expensive than a direct tax. What's more, it's unlikely that the grant recipients can generate enough economic returns to offset billions of dollars in bond repayments. And Prop. 38 is replete with unfair favoritism, giving more than half of the funds to the University of California. Listen to Dr. Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at the Clinical Excellence Research Center at the Stanford School of Medicine, who opposes the initiative: "As written, Proposition 38 is deceptive. It will funnel billions of dollars to benefit its billionaire donor. Voters should reject a measure that channels half of the state funds to one institution based on arbitrary criteria chosen by the proposition authors. Grants for medical research should be awarded through a competitive process that gives all competitors an equal chance." YES Prop. 39: Promotes election integrity by requiring voters to provide some form of identification to vote, something that is sorely lacking in California. The voter must choose among thirty “proofs of identity” that California recognizes; that “identity” must go on the voter registration form; then that must match the identification the voter presents when voting in person or by mail. Plus, it's a constitutional amendment, which is above the Legislature. And where the proposition text is specific, it could even be upheld by the corrupt California Supreme Court. So, where Prop. 39 has specific mandates, it will likely increase election integrity in California. NO Prop. 40: Proposes to levy a one-time 5% tax on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 BILLION, purportedly to "fund state health care programs, food assistance programs, and public education." This foolish proposition would eviscerate the state budget. Because approximately half of California's budget is funded by personal income taxes from top earners, including billionaires (expect a new exodus if Prop. 40 passes). For this reason, even liberals should oppose Prop. 40. Yet everyone with a moral conscience should oppose it because Prop. 40 is against equal opportunity, against personal merit, and is blatant theft of other people's money. YES Prop. 41: Would require pre-election audits for ballot initiatives proposing special taxes. As CalMatters explains, "This proposition would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. The auditor would assess whether the program that would receive funding could cut spending by at least 10% annually. Any new special tax approved by voters would count toward California’s spending limit, potentially triggering automatic refunds that reduce funding for other state programs." Prop. 41 should be supported by anyone who wants government efficiency and transparency. As Robert Gutierrez, president of CalTax, explains, "The Transparency Act gives voters the chance to have a transparent, unbiased analysis of a proposed tax and the programs it would support, ensuring a clear understanding of how that program will benefit communities before they cast their vote. And the public audits that follow will ensure continued oversight -- so that tax dollars will be spent efficiently and as intended on programs that are meant to provide essential support to children, families and vulnerable communities across the state." YES Prop. 42: Would prohibit the enactment of new taxes after January 1, 2026 on ownership or accumulation of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings. In other words, Prop. 42 will protect your savings and assets from money grabs by a covetous state government. Taxpayer advocate Tom Hudson, explains: "It’s not surprising that voters support protecting their retirement and savings from new taxes. History shows that taxes sold as narrow taxes on the wealthy often end up reaching working and middle-class families. Californians want our state to do better with the money they already have. They shouldn’t get to take more money from Californians if they saved responsibly." YES Prop. 43: Would require "a two-thirds vote by the electorate to enact, extend, or increase local special tax initiatives and prohibit local governments and ballot initiatives from enacting ad valorem property taxes except those authorized elsewhere in the state constitution" (source: Ballotpedia). Prop. 43 is supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, despite it not being as tough as their original initiative. As HJTA president Jon Coupal said on June 25, "Today the Legislature voted to make it harder to raise taxes by advancing a constitutional amendment, ACA 22, to close a loophole that had allowed some special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13." NO Prop. 44: Would prohibit federally-qualified health centers and related organizations from spending less than 90% of their annual revenue on mission-related purposes. Specifically, Prop. 44 "imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on "program services" advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services" (source: Prop. 44 ballot summary). This seems unfair and unrealistic. Because what if, to be effective, 12% or 15% needs to be spent on "non-program items"? Spending standards are good, but Prop. 44 seems like overkill, and could result in the closure of some clinics that can't both operate and pay penalties. YES Prop. 45: Would restrict environmental wacko group lawsuit power that drags out reviews of housing and other infrastructure projects. This anti-people agenda is empowered by California’s environmental review law (CEQA), which is in sore need of reform. As Ballotpedia explains, "The initiative would make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) as it relates to essential projects. Essential projects would include the following list of projects and associated infrastructure: housing, water systems (excluding Delta conveyance facilities), clean energy, medical treatment facilities, public safety (including first responder facilities and wildfire risk reduction; excluding jails or prisons), broadband internet access, education facilities, and transportation (excluding high-speed rail)...The initiative would set a 30-day time limit for lead or responsible agencies to determine whether an essential project application is complete. This would apply to projects needing local general plan or zoning changes. If the lead or responsible agency does not make a determination within 30 days, the application is automatically considered complete."

The Church must take right ground in regard to politics... Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as part of their duty to God... God will bless or curse this nation, according to the course Christians take in politics. Charles Grandison Finney, U.S. Christian evangelist and college president (1792–1875)

MassResistance Analysis: How Graphic, Obscene Books in Schools and Libraries Harm Children

 

Analysis

How graphic, obscene books in schools and libraries harm children

It’s far worse than most people realize

The radical employees and politicians who put the books in – and defend them

Note: Graphic descriptions below.

August 10, 2026

 School officials, library officials, and leftist organizations simply ignore the overwhelming studies on this subject.

It would have been beyond anyone’s imagination just a few generations ago: Radical adults in schools and libraries are aggressively pushing graphic pornography and obscene homosexual imagery on children and teenagers. And public officials are supporting it.

Yet parents who want to protect children are publicly slandered as “book banners,” “Bible thumpers,” or opponents of “free speech.”

The proponents claim this vile material “helps” children relate to the real world. Leftist law firms such as the ACLU spend huge sums suing school districts that disagree, claiming that children have a “right” to read this pornography. Far-left legislatures in Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and other states have even passed laws banning the removal of pornography from schools and libraries.

What they’re giving your kids to read

Here are just a few examples among hundreds of harmful books pushed and defended by the porn alliance in public schools and libraries across the country:

• Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe: Explicit drawings of teens having homosexual sex with each other, including a “transgender boy” (a girl pretending to be a boy) sucking on a boy’s penis. One drawing is of a man lying back on a bed with his legs spread while the other man is lying between his legs. Typical dialogue: "I can't wait to have your cock in my mouth.”
• Flamer by Mike Curato: Crude descriptions of “gay” boys talking a Christian boy into engaging in homosexual oral and anal sex with them. He then “embraces” his newly accepted homosexuality. There’s a sick description of boys masturbating into a bottle and forcing another boy to masturbate in front of them, or else he’ll be forced to drink it.
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky: The book contains graphic descriptions of anal sex between two boys, male masturbation, oral sex, homosexual acts, and sexual acts between teenagers.

 We've seen these books listed in schools and public libraries across the United States.

Does this really help children and teenagers “relate to the world”? Should children be given the “right to read” this material over the objections of parents, school boards, and library boards who disagree?

What pornography does really to children and teenagers – now and later in life

Studies regarding children and teenagers being exposed to heterosexual pornography invariably come to the same conclusions:

Problems affecting children and teenagers

• Early sexual behavior, including extreme and aggressive sexual experiences.
  
• Susceptible to sexual predators. Sexual predators often expose young children to pornography for the purpose of grooming them for sexual abuse, prostitution, and trafficking.
• Desensitization. Getting used to extreme content and becoming addicted to pornography (becoming consumers thereby enriching the porn producers).
• Antisocial or violent behavior. Children who have viewed pornography are statistically more likely to sexually assault their peers.
• Adolescents who view porn are more likely to use illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.

Later in adult life: Increased likelihood of emotional, social, and sexual problems

• Problems with intimacy. Difficulty forming and keeping romantic relationships, higher breakup rates. Loss of attraction to real world partners.
• Inability to have normal sexual relationships. They often become obsessed with acting out warped sexual acts they have seen, including rape, bondage and other perversions.
• Impotence; inability among males to achieve erections in an appropriate relationship with a female.
• Emotional problems. more feelings of anxiety, stress, low self-esteem, depression sadness, low mood, guilt, shame, or general unhappiness. This leads to reduced ability to interact in social situations.

Some research links:

• Adolescents, Porn, and Mental Health: Understanding the
• Dangerous Effects of Porn on Developing Minds
• Adolescents and Pornography: A Review of 20 Years of Research
• Impact of pornography consumption on children and adolescents: a trauma-informed approach
• Pornography Use Profiles and the Emergence of Sexual Behaviors in Adolescence
• The effects of pornography on children and young people
• Exposure to sexual content and problematic sexual behaviors in children and adolescents

LGBT pornography in schools – even worse!

A large portion of the obscene books for children and teenagers pushes the normalization of homosexuality, transgenderism, BDSM, and other perversions. It involves graphic homosexual descriptions and imagery as well as carefully crafted stories, relationships, and descriptions for children as young as pre-Kindergarten.

What does “LGBT” pornography do to the minds of vulnerable children and teenagers?

Due to political correctness, the aggressive LGBT movement, and threats of “cancelling,” there is a shocking lack of legitimate studies and serious medical inquiry into this. We couldn’t find any. Moreover, all the major medical associations insist that homosexuality and its related behaviors – transgenderism, gender issues, etc. – are simply normal.

However, our own (admittedly unscientific) findings over decades of talking with parents have been shocking. Exposure to homosexual pornography or normalization of LGBT relationships and behaviors is dreadfully destructive for a child or teenager. It brings the effects listed above with the added layer of normalizing and even causing an addiction to those perversions in the mind of the developing child.

• It can cause great confusion in the child’s mind as to what’s really “normal.”
• It can cause a child to seek out homosexual sexual experiences or relationships, transgender or BDSM behaviors, or other “gender” related issues.
• It can bring on LGBT-related mental illness, medical issues (e.g., STDs), and emotional problems (including depression and suicidality).
• It can very often make the child prone to sexual abuse or rape by older same-sex children or adults
• We have talked to adults who have homosexual issues that stem from exposure to homosexual sexual material as a child.

Why are those adults obsessed with making this material available to youth?

That is a question that vexes parents across the country. It was never like this until recent decades. The answer relates to the nature of the radical mindset, which unfortunately has permeated schools and libraries. These adults want to use the younger generation to perpetuate their own radical attitudes and worldview.

An alternate explanation: We once asked the late Dr. Judith Reisman, a nationally known researcher and author of several books on the sexuality of children: Why do teachers and librarians do this to children, especially when they know how this affects children and they know that parents don’t want their children to be exposed to this material?

Dr. Reisman was blunt. “These people hate children,” she told us. Just as so many leftists irrationally hate conservatives, there is something about healthy, emotionally stable, and God-fearing children that these people seem to despise. What they obviously love is their radical ideology.

Final thoughts

This is a monumentally important battle that MassResistance has been committed to.

As one mother said to us after her daughter was led to lesbianism by materials in her high school, “They’re screwing up kids sexually for the rest of their lives.”

It's a battle that parents must stand up to and confront, no matter what intimidation, harassment, or threats come against them from the demonic Left. We're here to help. It’s too important to ignore.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

The Success of In-N-Out

The NRA Is Resetting, Aiming for Higher Targets

The NRA has been through tough times:

·         The 1994 assault weapons ban.

·         The “academic” consensus that gun control would control gun crime.

·         “Conservative” presidents like Ronald Reagan signaling support for gun restrictions.

The latest setback involved Wayne LaPierre, the previous EVP and CEO. He wisely and courageously rebuffed the post-Sandy Hook mass shooting hysteria with “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” Recently, LaPierre was found liable for misappropriating NRA funds. Internal dramas exploded to the forefront, distracting from the core mission: protect the gun rights of Americans and ensure full enforcement of the Second Amendment.

The good news is that the NRA is getting back on track, based on the latest meeting of the South Bay, Los Angeles County NRA chapter in Redondo Beach, CA.

California is about as hostile as it gets for gun rights, and Los Angeles is one of the most hostile sections on top of that. Why would the NRA show any signs of hope, let alone comity, there?

Four reps from the NRA addressed the club: National Manager David Holbrook, Managing Director Lexi Higgins, Grassroots Field Coordinator Darius Diggs, and California state director Clay Kimberling. They gave upbeat updates. The worst of the NRA leadership drama is over. Better executives have taken, and their focus is winning, even in gun-control hellhole California.

State Director Kimberling discussed key bills, good and bad, working their way through the state capitol. In the midst of all the bad news, one good bill passed: AB 1948. Newsom recently signed off on this legislation, which allows CCW permit holders to renew their permits only every three years, instead of every two years. I had to press in on this news, since Newsom is the last guy who would want to look pro-gun.

Kimberling explained that sheriff’s departments throughout the state were complaining about their increased permit renewal backlogs, and they need some relief. Starting June 30^th, 2026, California residents who obtain a CCW can wait three years before having to renew. Of course, we would prefer to carry without having to obtain a permit, but every step towards freedom is better than nothing.

Unfortunately, one of the notorious pieces of legislation in Sacramento, as if the hyperbole seems unfitting or unnecessary, is Senate Bill 948. The radical former mayor of the People’s Republic of Berkeley, CA (and now state senator), Jesse Arreguin has filed this bill.

 

This legislation would require every prospective gun owner in the state to take a 4-hour training class before they could take the firearms safety certificate questionnaire—in order to have permission to buy guns! What’s the real purpose? National Manager Holbrook explained that SB 948 is about enacting a de facto gun ban. How many are prepared to jump through a bunch of hoops, take extra time, and spend $200 at a shooting range looking for a trainer so they can get the 4 hours in, and then take a written test, which they also must pay for? Can you imagine any state imposing a set of certificated requirements for you to publish an opinion? Or to write a blog? 

Can you imagine any state requiring you to take a class and be certificated so that you could assert your 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure? All of this is ridiculous. And yet this is the latest deceptive legislative scam that California gun-control fanatics are pushing. The legislation has already passed the state senate and it's facing a vote before the State Assembly appropriations committee in the next month. There is some good news, however, as even some Democratic lawmakers are uncomfortable with the extra, onerous requirements in SB 948. 

Of course, the NRA and its grassroots networks have found success not just in stopping bad bills, not just in getting good pills to pass, even in California, but have won key court cases with their excellent legal team. From the NYPRA v Bruen in 2022 to today, the United State Supreme Court and lowers courts have rendered more decisions favoring gun rights and upholding the strength of the Second Amendment. 

Aren’t legal victories a good enough remedy for dealing with bad laws coming out of California? It's important to recognize that California Democrats are pushing horrific gun laws precisely so that they can bleed gun owners and gun rights groups dry with vexatious litigation and forced appeals. The whole purpose of the left’s legal onslaught against our constitutional rights is about discouraging citizens from exercising them in the first place! 

The four NRA advocates could not make it clearer: don't stop making the phone calls, don't stop confronting your representatives, don't stop making your voices heard. 

James Ma, the South Bay NRA chapter leader, stressed winning not just at the state level but the local level. Gun control advocates are using every tool, including targeting local planning commissions so that gun stores cannot open in cities. In 2022, Torrance, California, was considering a gun store in the Downtown area. Gun owners and gun rights activists throughout the region were convinced that the mayor and a majority of council members would do the common-sense thing and allow the gun store to open. However, the local school district and local indivisible groups lined up and induced high school students to attend the city council meeting all calling for the gun store to be denied.

And they won.  This loss reminded everyone that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance, and gun owners need to stay alert. The NRA leaders stressed this principle, too.

One of the most engaging of the four speakers, Darius Diggs, reminded the South Bay audience of how free and open gun culture is next door in Arizona. The residents of the Grand Canyon State don’t even have to obtain a Firearms Safety Certificate to purchase guns. How much are California gun owners willing to tolerate? This is outrageous! Diggs invited the room to join the NRA as FrontLines Activist Leaders. Don’t just make phone calls from home. Network with fellow gun owners and Second Amendment advocates. Come prepared to testify for and against gun-related bills in Sacramento.

The NRA leaders left the South Bay NRA chapter with one final point: the fight for gun rights matters even in the bluest of states. Most gun control plots emanate out of California. If we can stop them here, we keep them from advancing across the country. 

According to Managing Director Higgins, the Trump Administration has been the most gun friendly administration in our nation's history. She identified steady victories from the Trump DOJ, plus their ongoing lawsuits and piecemeal legislative victories, passing good policy and stopping a lot of bad legislation. With these victories, California can be a battleground for long-term victory in the fight to protect our constitutional rights 

The upbeat but serious speeches from the four NRA advocates encouraged everyone with hope and purpose. The large turnout for the chapter meeting showed that the NRA outreach is working. A new spirit is invigorating the NRA, and if gun owners sense hope in California, you know that things are looking good for the rest of the country.