If you didn’t know already, Harley-Davidson is in trouble. It all started when Harley’s annual report for 2024 revealed a revenue decline of more than 60%. Of course, media and public scrutiny followed thereafter, and this in turn set off a chain of events that have been hard to ignore since. First, Trump’s latest tariffs came as a big blow to the American bikemaker. This was followed by the news of Jochen Zeitz, the company CEO, choosing to step down amid growing challenges. Soon after, a Harley-Davidson director resigned after expressing “grave concerns” about the company’s plight. And there doesn’t look to be an end in sight. In the latest developments at the Milwaukee-based company, H Partners, Harley’s second-largest investor group, is preparing to remove three Harley-Davidson directors. The group holds a roughly 9% stake in the company. READ REST OF ARTICLE NOW HERE!! POWER & BETRAYAL OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE CLUB LIFE BY JAMES HOLLYWOOD MACECARI. GET YOURS NOW

Politico.eu published a nasty article titled, When Giorgia Met Donny. It claims they were lovebombing and referred to Prime Minister Meloni as “Tricksy.” Author Giulio Poloni wrote: The world just witnessed an example of a White House circle of praise when Italian Prime Minister and woman who will only sing the national anthem at the […] The post A Moment with Giorgia Meloni & Politico-ists Who Hate Her appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had three requirements for Russian President Vladimir Putin, all of which he expected to be met in order to stop the bloodshed and end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump spoke to the press at the airport in Morristown, New Jersey, as he prepared to board Air Force One and return to the White House after a long weekend trip that included his attendance at the funeral for the late Pope Francis as well as a one-on-one meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Reporters began with questions about the meeting with Zelensky at the Vatican — which, after their highly-publicized Oval Office blowout, was much less dramatic — and Trump said that the pair had had a “good meeting.” “We had a good meeting, it was a nice meeting — it was a beautiful meeting, I tell you , it was the nicest office I’ve ever seen,” Trump said. “It was a beautiful scene. He was very — he wants to do something good for his country. He thinks he’s doing a good job, he’s working hard, we’ll see what happens.” Trump went on to say that Zelensky had told him that “he needs more weapons, but he’s been saying that for three years. He needs more weapons and we’re going to see what happens with respect to Russia because, Russia, I’ve been surprised and disappointed that they did the bombing of those places after discussions.” WATCH: .@POTUS on his meeting with President Zelenskyy: We had a good meeting… he wants to do something good for his country… I want to see what happens with respect to Russia because I've been surprised and disappointed that they did the bombing of those places after discussions. pic.twitter.com/OmkDiv0TIR — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 27, 2025 The follow-up question moved on to Trump’s plans with regard to Russia, and a reporter asked him, “What do you want Vladimir Putin to do?” “Well, I want him to stop shooting, sit down and sign a deal. We have the confines of a deal, I believe,” Trump replied. “And I want him to sign it and be done with it, and just go back to life.” WATCH: REPORTER: What do you want Vladimir Putin to do?@POTUS: "I want him to stop shooting, sit down and sign a deal. We have the confines of a deal, I believe." pic.twitter.com/GAhIY6tBx2 — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 27, 2025

When Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton began working together on the voice, they never knew the show would lead to marriage. Both had previous marriages, and neither was really looking, but the attraction they felt was palpable and too intense to ignore. Gwen and Blake met in 2014 and began dating the following year. They married in July 2021 and will celebrate their fourth wedding anniversary this summer. Per the Daily Mail, Gwen Stefani told Drew Barrymore that if you want your marriage to work, you must have a third party involved. And by a third party, Gwen meant God. Gwen Stefani And Blake Shelton Have A Happy Marriage Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton are happy and keep God and faith a part of the marriage. Gwen caught heat when she partnered with the Catholic app Hallow. On the first day of Lent, Gwen asked her followers to join her in prayer. She posted on Instagram, “Ash Wednesday is here the start of lent—40 days of prayer, fasting, and reflection leading up to easter every year, i try to make this time more intentional, and I’m so excited to do @hallowapp’s Pray40 challenge – The Way,” She wrote, “let’s do this together make this your most meaningful lent yet by joining me on hallow.” This person didn’t like it and wrote, “Girl this is so embarrassing.” But this fan disagreed, “It’s truly disheartening to see people making hurtful comments about Gwen Stefani’s Catholic faith. It’s a reminder of how much intolerance still exists in the world. What happened to embracing one another, no matter our beliefs, backgrounds, or faiths? Everyone deserves respect and kindness, yet some seem to forget that.” God isn’t hurting Gwen Stefani’s marriage. She and Blake Shelton were photographed at Easter Mass in Los Angeles on April 20. If it works for them, who is anyone to judge? This story’s featured image is by Tammie Arroyo/Variety via Getty Images. The post Gwen Stefani’s Wholesome Marriage Advice May Not Be What You Expected appeared first on InspireMore.

Saquon Barkley! Cool as a cucumber

Say what you will about Donald Trump — he knows how to drum up publicity. He's even managed to interest Americans in Canada’s upcoming federal election, now less than a week away. The president's influence on the contest was all but guaranteed last month, when he made good on his threats to levy a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum — with further duties on lumber and pharmaceuticals a possibility.Despite his ostensible Canada-first outlook, Pierre Poilievre has been in lockstep with the Liberal government policy on Ukraine for over three years.Prior to this movie, Pierre Poilievre's Conservative Party was strongly favored to unseat the reigning Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau successor Mark Carney. Not so today. Agreeing to agreeThe Liberals have benefited from a surge of Canadian antipathy toward Trump, to the extent that they now seem to be running more against the American president than the opposition Conservative Party — something that the American media has not failed to notice. For his part, Trump has actually endorsed Carney.With the April 28 election looming, what has become a two-party race between Liberals and Conservatives remains close. While the vote may serve as a referendum on Trump's economic policy, another issue has proven depressingly uncontroversial: support for Ukraine. For all of their differences, Canada's four major political parties all share a turgid and demented determination to continue to pour billions of dollars into the black hole of Kyiv. This despite Trump’s repeated pledge to end the Russia-Ukraine war. While saying he could do it in a mere 24 hours may have been typical Trumpian hyperbole, it's clear that securing peace remains a priority for the president. Biden's follyOne need only look at what happened under the previous administration to understand why. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a regular visitor to the Biden White House, always clad in his odd mixture of combat gear and activewear — and never leaving empty handed.The engagement of U.S. and NATO military personnel alongside Ukrainian soldiers, as well as the use of American and British missiles to strike the Russian heartland, brought America perilously close to nuclear war with Russia. Seeing the horrible potential for a third world war, both Trump and then-Senator JD Vance urged caution and encouraged peace.Incredibly, Canada seems not to have taken the hint. Alone and outgunnedEven as Trump slowly but surely extricates the U.S. from supporting Ukraine and distances itself from NATO members who delusionally believe they can either take on Russia in a conventional war or somehow survive a nuclear one, Canadian political leaders talk about going it alone against Russia without America.This is beyond ludicrous. Canada does not have a single operational tank left after giving all of its working Leopard models to Ukraine. It has yet to replenished the vast quantities of armaments it has given Ukraine; in fact, it is unable to do so. The U.K.’s military is also a shell of what it was, say, in 1982, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went to war over the Falkland Islands.Besides, the war is effectively over. Ukraine cannot continue to furnish more troops for the battlefield even if it continues to abduct recruits from the streets and bars. Anyone who advocates the continuation of the war is, knowingly or not, arguing for the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians. It is a consummation that might have already occurred.Not up for debate?Canadians should demand to know why all four party leaders at the English-language leaders’ debate in Montreal last Thursday stood foursquare behind that policy. Yes, such painful pandering should be expected from Carney, as well as Bloc Quebecois (separatist) chief Yves-Francois Blanchet and New Democratic Party boss Jagmeet Singh. But Poilievre? Despite his ostensible Canada-first outlook, the politician has been in lockstep with the Liberal government policy on Ukraine for over three years.When asked how a Conservative government would respond to Zelenskyy’s continued demands for money and armaments, Poilievre responded, “I believe we should continue to support Ukraine. Our party supported donating missiles that the Canadian military was decommissioning. We supported funds and other armaments to back the Ukrainians in the defense of their sovereignty.”Knowing full well how unpopular this view is with his conservative base, Poilievre quickly tried to change the subject, emphasizing the need “to rebuild our own Canadian military, because the Russians want to make incursions into our waters.""We'll be buying four massive Arctic ice breakers," Poilievre continued. "I'll be opening the first Arctic base since the Cold War in Canada, CFB, Iqaluit.”Fleshing it outThat wasn’t good enough for the debate moderator, who pressed Poilievre to “put a little more flesh on the bone of what you think Canada could do for Ukraine.” His response:My answer is that we should continue to support Ukraine. We don't need to follow the Americans in everything they do when they're wrong, then we will stand on our own and with other allies and with respect to Ukraine, that includes support with intelligence equipment, armaments, but it also includes defunding Putin. Right now, Vladimir Putin has a monopoly on the European energy market because, frankly, the liberals blocked exports of Canadian natural gas off the Atlantic coast. They blocked multiple projects. I would rapidly approve those projects on national security grounds, so that we can, we can actually ship Canadian natural gas over to Europe, break European dependence on Putin, defund the war, and turn dollars for dictators back into paychecks for our people.Nice try, but it still adds up to flaky policy based on a perceived need to appease the Ukrainian-Canadian vote that is preponderant in many key constituencies across Canada — a vote that generally goes to the Liberals. Poilievre's words may also alienate Conservatives to the point that they decide not to vote at all — or to give their vote to the one Canadian party that opposes aid to Ukraine: Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada.Maxime effort People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier campaigns in Edmonton April 18. NurPhoto/Getty ImagesA libertarian alternative that has fielded candidates in every Canadian riding and could actually capture one or two this election, the PPC lacked the 5% share of national voters necessary to participate in the debate. Nevertheless, Bernier continues to speak for all Canadians fed up with their country's involvement in this endless and expensive quagmire. As he told Align:The war in Ukraine is not a conflict between good and evil, or autocracy versus democracy. It’s a longstanding conflict over border territories between these two countries that has been amplified and turned into a proxy war by NATO and the imperialist warmongers in Washington and other western capitals.It doesn’t concern Canada and we should have nothing to do with it. Russia is not our enemy. The only reason Canada is so involved is that the establishment parties are pandering to Canadians of Ukrainian descent.It's a message that deserves a wider hearing and could resonate with Canadians fed up with the endless and expensive quagmire.

California’s wide range of problems — including declining schools, widening inequality, rising housing prices, and a weak job market — shows the urgent need for reform. The larger question is whether there exists a will to change. Although the state’s remarkable entrepreneurial economy has kept it afloat, a growing number of residents are concluding that the progressive agenda, pushed by public unions and their well-heeled allies, is failing. Most Californians have an exceptional lack of faith in the state’s direction. Only 40% of California voters approve of the legislature, and almost two-thirds have told pollsters the state is heading in the wrong direction. That helps explain why California residents — including about 1.1 million since 2021 — have been fleeing to other states. California needs a movement that can stitch together a coalition of conservatives, independents, and, most critically, moderate Democrats. Unhappiness with the one-party state is particularly intense in the inland areas, which are the only locales now growing and may prove critical to any resurgence. More troubling still, over 70% of California parents feel their children will do less well than they did. Four in 10 are considering an exit. By contrast, seniors, thought to be leaving en masse, are the least likely to express a desire to leave. In some ways, discontent actually erodes potential support for reform. Conservative voters, notes a recent study, are far more likely to express a desire to move out of the state; the most liberal are the least likely. “Texas is taking away my voters,” laments Shawn Steel, California’s Republican National Committee member. New awakenings Given the demographic realities, a successful drive for reform cannot be driven by a marginalized GOP. Instead, what’s needed is a movement that can stitch together a coalition of conservatives, independents (now the state’s second-largest political grouping), and, most critically, moderate Democrats. Remarkably, this shift has already begun in an unlikely place: the ultra-liberal, overwhelmingly Democratic Bay Area. For years, its most influential residents — billionaires, venture capitalists, and well-paid tech workers — have abetted or tolerated an increasingly ineffective and corrupt regime. Not only was the area poorly governed, but the streets of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and other cities have become scenes of almost Dickensian squalor. Over the past two years, tech entrepreneurs and professionals concerned about homelessness and crime worked to get rid of progressive prosecutor Chesa Boudin. Last year, they helped elect Dan Lurie, scion of the Levi Strauss fortune, as mayor, as well as some more moderate members to the board of supervisors. Lurie, of course, faces a major challenge to restore San Francisco’s luster against entrenched progressives and their allies in the media, academia, and the state’s bureaucracy. Similar pushbacks are evident elsewhere. Californians, by large majorities, recently passed bills to strengthen law enforcement, ditching liberalized sentencing laws passed by Democratic lawmakers and defended by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Progressive Democrats have been recalled not only in San Francisco but also in Oakland (Alameda County) and Los Angeles, with voters blaming ideology-driven law enforcement for increasing rates of crime and disorder. Critically, the liberal elites are not the only ones breaking ranks. Pressure for change is also coming from increasingly conservative Asian voters and Jews — who number more than 1 million in the state and largely are revolted by the anti-Semitism rife among some on the progressive left. Protecting property and economic growth is particularly critical to Latino and Asian immigrants — California is home to five of the 10 American counties with the most immigrants — who are more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans. These minority entrepreneurs and those working for them are unlikely to share the view of progressive intellectuals, who see crime as an expression of injustice and who often excused or even celebrated looting during the summer of 2020. After all, it was largely people from “communities of color” who have borne the brunt of violent crime in cities such as Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco. Minorities also face special challenges doing business here due to regulations that are especially burdensome on smaller, less capitalized businesses. According to the Small Business Regulation Index, California has the worst business climate for small firms in the nation. The shift among minority voters could prove a critical game-changer, both within the Democratic Party and the still-weak GOP. In Oakland, for example, many minorities backed the removal of Mayor Sheng Thao (D), a progressive committed to lenient policing in what is now California’s most troubled, if not failed, major city. Latinos, already the state’s largest ethnic group, constituting about 37.7% of the workforce, with expectations of further growth by 2030, seem to be heading toward the right. In the last presidential election, Trump did well in the heavily Latino inland counties and won the “Inland Empire” — the metropolitan area bordering Los Angeles and Orange Counties – the first time a GOP presidential candidate has achieved this in two decades. Back to basics After a generation of relentless virtue-signaling, California’s government needs to focus on the basic needs of its citizens: education, energy, housing, water supply, and public safety. As a widely distributed editorial by a small business owner noted, Californians, especially after highly publicized fire response failures in Los Angeles earlier this year, are increasingly willing to demand competent “basic governance” backed by a “ruthless examination of results” to ensure that their government supports “modest aspirations” for a better life. California once excelled in basic governance, especially in the 1950s and '60s under Democratic Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown. The state managed to cultivate growth while meeting key environmental challenges, starting in the late 1960s, most notably chronic air pollution. In what is justifiably hailed as a “major success,” California helped pioneer clean air regulatory approaches that have vastly reduced most automotive tailpipe emissions as well as eliminated lead and dramatically cut sulfur levels. All of this starkly contrasts with the poor planning, execution, and catastrophist science evoked to justify the state’s climate agenda. Even Pat Brown’s son, former Gov. Jerry Brown (D), recognized that California has little effect on climate. Given the global nature of the challenge, reducing one state’s emissions by cutting back on industrial activities accomplishes little if those activities move elsewhere, often to locations with fewer restrictions such as China and India. Rather than focusing on “climate leadership,” Sacramento needs to tackle the immediate causes of record out-migration, including sluggish economic growth and the nation’s highest levels of poverty and homelessness. The great challenges are not combatting global temperature rises but the housing crisis and the need to diversify the economy and improve the failing education system. As these problems have often been worsened by climate policies, there seems little reason for other states and countries to adopt California’s approach as a model. halbergman via iStock/Getty Images Fixing housing California now has the nation’s second-lowest home ownership rate at 55.9%, slightly above New York (55.4%). High interest rates that have helped push home sales to the lowest level in three decades across the country are particularly burdensome in coastal California metros, where prices have risen to nearly 400% above the national average. The government almost owned up to its role in creating the state’s housing crisis — especially through excessive housing regulations and lawfare on developers — earlier this year when Newsom moved to cut red tape so homes could be rebuilt after the Los Angeles fires. Current state policy — embraced by Yes in My Backyard activists, the greens, and unions — focuses on dense urban development. Projects are held up, for example, for creating too many vehicle miles traveled, even though barely 3.1% of Californians in 2023 took public transit to work, according to the American Community Survey. As a result, much “affordable” development is being steered to densely built areas that have the highest land prices. This is made worse with mandates associated with new projects, such as green building codes and union labor, that raise the price per unit to $1 million or more. A far more enlightened approach would allow new growth to take place primarily outside city centers in interior areas where land costs are lower and where lower-cost, moderate-density new developments could flourish. These include areas like Riverside/San Bernardino, Yolo County (adjacent to Sacramento), and Solano County, east of San Francisco Bay. This approach would align with the behavior of residents who are already flocking to these areas because they provide lower-income households, often younger black and Latino, with the most favorable home ownership opportunities in the state.Over 71% of all housing units in the Inland Empire are single-family homes, and the aggregate ownership rate is over 63%, far above the state’s dismal 45.8% level. Without change, the state is socially, fiscally, and economically unsustainable. California needs to return to attracting the young, talented, and ambitious, not just be a magnet for the wealthy or super-educated few. More than anything, California needs a housing policy that syncs with the needs and preferences of its people, particularly young families. Rather than being consigned to apartments, 70% of Californians prefer single-family residences. The vast majority oppose legislation written by Yes in My Backyard hero Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener banning single-family zoning in much of the state. Investment in the interior is critical for recreating the old California dream for millions of aspiring households, particularly among minorities who are being driven out of the home ownership market in the coastal metropolitan areas. The only California metropolitan area ranked by the National Association of Realtors as a top 10 pick for Millennials was not hip San Francisco or glamorous Los Angeles, but the more affordable historically “redneck” valley community of Bakersfield. The numerous housing bills passed by Sacramento have not improved the situation. From 2010 to 2023, permits for single-family homes in California fell to a monthly average of 3,957 units from 8,529 during 1993-2006. California’s housing stock rose by just 7.9% between 2010 and 2023, lower than the national increase (10.3%) and well below housing growth in Arizona (13.8%), Nevada (14.7%), Texas (24%), and Florida (16.2%). A more successful model can be seen in Texas, which generally advances market-oriented policies that have generated prodigious growth in both single-family and multi-family housing. This has helped the Lone Star State meet the housing needs of its far faster-growing population. A building boom has slowed, and there’s been some healthy decrease in prices in hot markets like Austin. Opening up leased grazing land in state and federal parks — roughly half the state land is owned by governments — could also relieve pressure on land prices. Until California allows for housing that people prefer, high prices and out-migration will continue into the foreseeable future. Ultimately, California has room to grow, despite the suggestions by some academics that the state is largely “built out.”In reality, California is not “land short,” either in its cities or across its vast interior. Urbanization covers only 5.3% of the state, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, while parks, agricultural land, deserts, and forests make up the bulk of the area. Diversifying the economy Even Jerry Brown has remarked that the “Johnny one note” tech economy the state’s tax base depends on could stumble. This would reduce the huge returns on capital gains from the top 1% of filers, who now account for roughly half of all state income tax revenues. This overreliance may be particularly troublesome in the era of artificial intelligence, where tech companies may continue to expand but have less need for people. Indeed, San Francisco County, which boasts many tech jobs, experienced the nation’s largest drop in average weekly wages, 22.6%, between 2021 and 2022. To expand opportunity and, hence, its tax base, California has to make more of the state attractive to employers. The best prospects, again, will be in inland areas.Today, when firms want to build spaceships, a clear growth industry where California retains significant leadership, as well as battery plants and high-tech and food processing facilities, they often opt to go to Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas. Given lower land and housing costs, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, as well as spots on the Central Coast, should be ideally situated to compete for those jobs. The current economic pattern creates a situation where AI developers, elite engineers, and venture capitalists may enjoy unprecedented profits, but relatively little trickles down to the mass of Californians. Not all Californians have wealthy parents to subsidize their lifestyle, and few are likely to thrive as AI engineers. To address the dilemmas facing the next generation of Californians, the state needs to focus not just on ephemera, software, and entertainment but on bringing back some of the basic industries that once forged the California dream. In this way, President Trump’s policies could actually help the state, particularly in fields like high-tech defense and space. In the 1940s, California played a key role in the American “arsenal of democracy.” Today, it could do the same, not so much by producing planes and Liberty ships, but drones, rockets, and space-based defense systems. Indeed, there are now discussions of reviving the state’s once-vaunted shipbuilding industry that buoyed the economy of Solano County — something sure to inspire the ire of the Bay Area’s rich and powerful environmental lobby. Photo by Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Improving education Climate and environmentalism are not the only barriers to California’s revival. No problem is more pressing and consequential than the state’s failure to educate California’s 5.9 million public school children. In fiscal year 2023-2024, California will spend about $128 billion on K-12 public education — an amount exceeding the entire budget of every other state except New York. Despite this level of spending, about 75% of California students lack proficiency in core subject areas based on federal education standards. Two out of three California students do not meet math standards, and more than half do not meet English standards on state assessments. Overall, less than half of California public school students performed at or above grade level for English language arts (reading, writing, etc.), while only 34.62% met or exceeded the math standard on the Smarter Balanced 2023 tests. The failures are particularly clear among minority students. According to the latest California testing results, only 36.08% of Latino students met or exceeded proficiency standards for English language arts. Only 22.69% met or exceeded proficiency standards in math. Latino students, for example, in Florida and Texas do somewhat better in both math and English, even though both states spend less per capita on education than California. Not surprisingly, many parents object to a system where half of the state’s high school students barely read at grade level. One illustration of discontent has been the growth of the charter school movement. Today, one in nine California schoolchildren attend charter schools (including my younger daughter). The state’s largest school district, the heavily union-dominated Los Angeles Unified School District, has lost roughly 40% of its enrollment over two decades, while the number of students in charters grew from 140,000 in 2010 to 207,000 in 2022. In addition to removing obstacles to charters, homeschoolers are part of the solution. California homeschool enrollment jumped by 78% in the five-year period before the pandemic and in the Los Angeles Unified School District by 89%. Equally important, some public districts and associated community colleges, as in Long Beach, have already shifted toward a more skills-based approach. Public officials understand that to keep a competitive edge, they need to supply industrial employers with skilled workers. This is all the more crucial as the aerospace workforce is aging — as much as 50% of Boeing’s workforce will be eligible for retirement in five years. In its quest for relevance, Long Beach’s educational partnership addresses the needs of the city’s industrial and trade sectors. This approach contrasts with the state’s big push to make students take an ethnic studies course designed to promote a progressive and somewhat anti-capitalist, multicultural agenda. They will also be required to embrace the ideology of man-made climate change even if their grasp of basic science is minimal. A “woke” consciousness or deeper ethnic affiliations will not lead to student success later in life. What will count for the students and for California’s economy is gaining the skills that are in demand. You cannot run a high-tech lathe, manage logistics, or design programs for space vehicles with ideology. More to come Conventional wisdom on the right considers California to be on the road to inexorable decline. Progressives, not surprisingly, embrace the Golden State as a model while ignoring the regressive, ineffective policies that have driven the state toward a feudal future. Yet both sides are wrong. California’s current progressive policies have failed, but if the state were governed correctly, it could resurge in ways that would astound the rest of the country and the world. Change is not impossible. As recent elections showed, Californians do not reflexively vote for progressives if they feel their safety or economic interests are on the line. If change is to come in California, it may not be primarily driven by libertarian or conservative ideologies but by stark realities. Over two-thirds of California cities do not have any funds set aside for retiree health care and other expenses. Twelve of the state’s 15 large cities are in the red, and for many, it is only getting worse. The state overall suffers $1 trillion in pension debt, notes former Democratic state Rep. Joe Nation. U.S. News and World Report places California, despite the tech boom, 42nd in fiscal health among the states. This pension shortfall makes paying for infrastructure, or even teacher salaries, extraordinarily difficult at the state and local levels. Without change, the state is socially, fiscally, and economically unsustainable, even if a handful of people get very rich and the older homeowners, public employees, and high-end professionals thrive. California needs to return to attracting the young, talented, and ambitious, not just be a magnet for the wealthy or super-educated few. This can only happen if the state unleashes the animal spirits that long drove its ascendancy. The other alternative may be a more racial, class-based radicalism promoted by the Democratic Socialists of America and their allies. They have their own “cure” for California’s ills. We see this in debates over rebuilding Los Angeles, with progressives pushing for heavily subsidized housing, as with the case of the redevelopment of the Jordan Downs public housing complex, while seeking to densify and expand subsidized housing to once solidly affluent areas like the Palisades. California has survived past crises — earthquakes and the defense and dot-com busts — and always has managed to reinvent itself. The key elements for success — its astounding physical environment, mild climate, and a tradition for relentless innovation — remain in place, ready to be released once the political constraints are loosened. Fifty years ago, in her song “California,” Canada-reared Joni Mitchell captured the universal appeal of our remarkable state, not just its sunshine, mountains, and beaches, but also how it gave its residents an unprecedented chance to meet their fondest aspirations. Contrasting her adopted home with the sheer grayness of life elsewhere, she wrote, “My heart cried out for you, California / Oh California, I’m coming home.” Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.