I’m looking at new apartments this week here in Portland, Oregon. It’s time for an upgrade.

This has triggered a debate I often have with myself: If I’m going to move, why not leave dysfunctional, far-left Portland altogether?

Had I become so comfortable with the bad vibes of Portland that I would stay here indefinitely, out of inertia or laziness or not wanting to start over?

This is my chance to move to a different city. Or another state. Somewhere with fewer drug addicts and criminals roaming the streets and fewer democratic socialists roaming city hall.

I grew up in Portland. I have lived here off and on throughout my life. During my most productive years as a writer, I lived in bigger, more media-oriented cities, mainly New York and Los Angeles.

But I’ve always loved coming back to Oregon and assumed I would settle here when I retire. Portland always felt like my place. I love the tall trees, the gentle rain, the misty Oregon coast.

Free radicals

Unfortunately, over the last 15 years, Portland has become a hotbed of radicalism and political intolerance. So much so that it has affected my daily life.

I’ve always socialized with creative types. But in Portland, the artistic community is often more hysterical than the violent protesters in the street.

Once it became known I was conservative, I lost about 80% of my writer friends. And maybe half of my other friends. This social exclusion was especially bad during the years around #MeToo, and then COVID, and of course the constant presence of Trump derangement syndrome.

Un-friendzoned

The result is that living here has been like living on a desert island. I feel unwelcome at art events. I avoid literary parties and gallery openings.

One egregious example: I didn’t attend the celebration of life for one of my most important literary mentors, a beloved Portland poet who encouraged me as a young writer and helped advance my career.

I owed so much to this man, and I couldn’t go to his funeral!

RELATED: WACK JOB: My adventures in the mental health industrial complex

Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Tiny bubbles

Recently, I saw a TikTok video by a woman whose family had moved from Seattle to Wyoming.

Her message was simple: “No matter how much you think you are aware of the bubble you live in, when you get out of these far-left cities, a whole new world opens up to you.”

This hit me hard. Had I become so comfortable with the bad vibes of Portland that I would stay here indefinitely, out of inertia or laziness or not wanting to start over?

My own private Idaho

One reason I’m reluctant to move to a red state is I’m not sure I would fit in.

Take for example, Boise, Idaho, the closest red city to Portland. I’ve visited there many times. It’s clean. There are no homeless. The people are super nice. It’s very “churchy” and family-oriented. There’s a large Mormon population.

But could I adapt to such a place? I’ve lived in liberal cities MY ENTIRE LIFE. I have never lived in a place like Boise. Would I find people who understand my sense of humor? People who like the obscure music I listen to? Or read the books I read?

Yes, the people of Boise would share my core values. But would they share my urban tastes?

Go east, young man

I had a Republican friend here in Portland who moved to Florida during Trump’s first term. At the time, that seemed like a drastic change.

For a couple of years, I emailed him every few months to ask how he was doing. He had settled right in. Florida was great. He loved it there.

As he grew more comfortable in Florida, I grew less comfortable in Portland. Now, in 2026, moving to Florida 10 years ago seems like a genius move. I am humbled by his foresight.

The great escape?

So what should I do? Be the latecomer, arriving in Tampa or Austin or Nashville a decade after all the smart people already moved there?

I guess it’s never too late. I could still escape.

But what about the tall trees, the gentle rain, and the misty coastline I love so much? What about my roots in the place where I grew up?

Robert E. Lee didn’t abandon his home state of Virginia in the face of a civil war. But Virginia was famous for its proud history and strong cultural heritage.

I’m from Portland, famous for people with orange hair who don’t know what gender they are.

Fall into the gap

I’ve always assumed Portland’s current political extremism would fade over time. Sooner or later, people would calm down and return to some form of normalcy.

But whenever I try to connect with my former liberal friends, I quickly learn that the derangement is stronger than ever.

So, should I stay or should I go?

These are the decisions we have to make during these difficult times — as we struggle to maintain our sense of ourselves and of where we came from.

​Blue states, Boise, Culture, Drug addicts, Lifestyle, Miami, Oregon, Political intolerance, Portland, Red states, Trump derangement syndrome, Wokeness, Blake’s progress 

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is back again with yet another video report on alleged H-1B fraud in her home state of Texas.

After multiple attempts to visit the listed address for Great America Technologies — a registered business in Plano, Texas, that sponsors multiple H-1B workers but has no signs of activity as well as a defunct phone number and website — Sara finally located the owner.

The confrontation led to fiery exchange.

– YouTube

“Let me give you the details on this company,” says Sara.

“In 2017 they formed this company with officers from Andhra Pradesh, India. They moved to Razor Boulevard allegedly in 2019, and in 2024, the previous owners, Laxmi Boggula and another gentleman, removed themselves as the directors and listed Nagarjuna Reddy Sakam as shareholder and director,” she explains.

“Now what we presume after doing some digging is that this new director, Nagarjuna … is actually the old director Laxmi’s husband. So it seems like we may be stumbling upon an H-1B/H-4 dependent situation where the woman opens the business and the H-1B visa worker actually runs it,” she continues.

In the next part of the video, Sara paid a visit to Nagarjuna’s personal residence.

After questioning him about the empty office and defunct phone number and website, Sara asked Nagarjuna to show her the business’ public access files and pressed him about the multiple H-1B employees he sponsors according to USCIS data.

This led to a heated back-and-forth exchange, in which Nagarjuna repeatedly denied that he employed as many H-1B workers as the USCIS database currently lists and claimed that the public access files were at a new business location in Frisco, Texas.

When Sara vowed to visit the site to obtain the files, Nagarjuna accused her of “creating nonsense.”

“Who the f**k are you come ask all these things?” he lashed out.

“Who the f**k are you to complain that I’m rooting out scam and fraud?” Sara fired back.

“Now I’m suspicious, because … if you’re doing something the right way, why would you care that I’m rooting out fraud?” she asked.

Sara then inquired about who was running the company before Nagarjuna received his green card and transferred the business to his name.

“Who was running the business at that time?” she asked.

“Me,” he said.

He then backtracked, “We [he and his wife] both are running [the business].”

“Well, you’re not allowed to do that. … How are you supposed to run that business and have a job that you’re actually being sponsored for on an H-1B?” Sara asked.

“You’re admitting that you were running a company that’s generating income. That’s against the H-1B rules,” she continued.

The contentious exchange ended with Nagarjuna threatening to file a lawsuit for being recorded without his permission and Sara vowing to report his business.

To see the footage, watch the video above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Blaze media, Blazetv, Great america technologies, Green card, H-1b fraud, H-1b visas, Nagarjuna reddy sakam, Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Texas, Unauthorized business activity, Uscis data 

Get a room, you two!

The collective fawning over Stephen Colbert’s CBS exit has reached a barf-bag level of nausea. And it’ll get worse up until his final May 21 telecast. But no one will top Pedro Pascal’s ode to the far-left host.

Say what you will about Pratt, but he’s hardly out of touch with his potential constituents. The former reality star’s home was wiped out by the Palisades Fire.

The star of “The Mandalorian and Grogu” visited “The Late Show” this week and demanded something special from Colbert.

A kiss.

Yes, a grown man planted a firm kiss on the lips of the soon-to-be-ex host. Now, Pascal hasn’t said anything about his sexual preferences to date. Colbert is a straight married man.

Make it make sense and/or, is this any way to market a movie?

The buss was a baffling blend of cringe and bizarre behavior. Much like “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” for that matter …

Troy boy

The most intriguing director in Hollywood is in damage-control mode, and his next movie doesn’t hit theaters until July 17.

Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” is one of the year’s most anticipated films. And why not? All-star cast (Damon! Hathaway! Pattinson! Zendaya!), classic source material, and a director coming off the Oscar-winning “Oppenheimer.”

The tickets practically sell themselves. So what’s the problem?

For starters, the project cast Lupita Nyong’o, a beautiful Oscar winner in a role that may be another example of DEI-style casting. She’ll play Helen of Troy in the film, a role previously played by Caucasian actors (Elizabeth Taylor, Diane Kruger, and Rossana Podestà). Race-blind casting is increasingly common, and it can be distracting in some historical projects.

Elliot Page, a trans performer, is also in the film, but the role in question is still unclear.

Those two casting choices have stirred a potentially woke attack against “The Odyssey,” sight unseen. And naturally, anyone who craves authentic film casting is immediately dubbed a racist by the legacy media.

Nolan already addressed another casting question, explaining that he hired rapper Travis Scott to play a bard in the film to honor how this story was passed on via oral poetry. That’s akin to rap, he argued.

Now, Nolan is prepping for a “60 Minutes” interview this weekend.

It’s not a shock to see actors and directors do press for a project, but that usually happens a week or two before the release date. Nolan’s oh-so-early press tour suggests culture war damage control is afoot …

RELATED: This underdog candidate’s app will expose the politicians to blame for LA’s shocking filth

Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Pratt fall

Whoopi Goldberg sunk to a new low this week, no small feat.

It seems like every episode of “The View” finds the Oscar-winner beclowning herself anew. This time, she slammed L.A. mayoral hopeful Spencer Pratt in her de facto style — lots of meandering attacks but little substance.

That’s Whoopi being Whoopi. And honestly, not a big deal in our noisy media age.

This part of her commentary, though, deserves special attention:

I don’t know what qualifies as the right way to be a politician, but what I do know is they have to be the people who understand what people are going through. And if you don’t understand what people are going through, in the way they’re going through it, when you’re talking about communities, whole communities that have been burned out, whole groups, legacies that are gone.

Say what you will about Pratt, but he’s hardly out of touch with his potential constituents. The former reality star’s home was wiped out by the Palisades Fire, and he blames Mayor Karen Bass for the city’s incompetent response to the blaze. The home, like so many others, has not been rebuilt. Blame permit woes, insurance issues, and government bureaucracy on steroids.

It’s why the former reality-show star got into the race in the first place. To paraphrase the tagline for “Jaws IV,” “This time, it’s personal.” Tell that to Goldberg.

We’d say it’s her dumbest rant yet, but there’s always next week …

License to cast

Remember the countless stories saying so and so actor was the leading choice to play 007 in the next James Bond film?

Rumors. Clickbait. Nothing more.

Now, finally, Amazon (which now pulls the franchise’s strings) has announced the search for the next superspy has officially begun. That’s five years after Daniel Craig’s fifth and final Bond adventure, “No Time to Die.”

The good news? “Dune” director Denis Villeneuve will be behind the camera. A great choice, full stop.

The bad news?

The next few dozen stories on the next Bond will likely include more rumors, not fact. And to be certain, some internet troll will claim that Page is the front-runner for the iconic part. And the social media outrage machine will click into overdrive, ignoring the fact that no studio in its right mind would make such a move.

Bet on it.

​Elliot page, Palisades fires, Pedro pascal, Spencer pratt, Stephen colbert, The late show, The odyssey, Travis scott, Culture, Entertainment, Television, Movies, Toto recall 

Last year, I set out to tell a story that much of the media seemed determined to distort.

On June 8, 2024, Israeli special forces launched a daylight raid into the heart of Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp. Four hostages, Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv, were being held in civilian homes. The operation unfolded under heavy fire. Intelligence had to be near-perfect. One wrong move would mean death for everyone involved.

I documented the firsthand accounts of IDF soldiers on the ground, the grieving parents of a fallen hero, and the elite special operators who carried out one of the most daring hostage rescues in modern history — Operation Arnon.

Any sovereign nation subjected to such a vicious assault bears both a political and moral responsibility to bring its citizens home.

The mission succeeded. The four civilians, kidnapped on October 7, 2023, returned home alive. But not without cost. Chief Inspector Arnon Zmora was mortally wounded. The operation, originally known as Seeds of Summer, was renamed in his honor.

The heroes of Operation Arnon were buried under headlines focused solely on casualty counts or international criticism. While the world debates the operation’s justification, the firsthand accounts in my documentary “Operation Arnon” reveal its compelling operational necessity.

Operation Arnon was a proportionate and justified response to the October 7 attacks carried out by Hamas and other allied terrorist organizations.

Any sovereign nation subjected to such a vicious assault bears both a political and moral responsibility to bring its citizens home. This “no man left behind” ethos is present in any nation that places value on the lives of its civilians and military personnel. Every life matters. Everyone comes home.

The recent combat search and rescue operation for the United States F-15E pilots epitomizes this dogma. On April 3, 2026, two U.S. pilots ejected from their damaged aircraft, landing into Iranian territory. U.S. joint forces immediately executed a CSAR, deploying over 150 aircraft, hundreds of U.S. troops and special operators, including Delta Force and Dev Gru, and CIA operatives.

The United States actions demonstrated the same unyielding commitment to the ethos that fueled Operation Arnon, an ironclad conviction that no sovereign nation can abandon its people to terrorists.

Yet Jeremy Laurence, spokesperson for the U.N. high commissioner for Human Rights, preferred to denounce the operation’s success, questioning its grounds for “distinction, proportionality, and precaution,” drawn from the conclusion that hundreds of civilians had been haphazardly slain as a result of the operation.

RELATED: Your enemies aren’t mentally ill. They apparently just want to kill you.

Blaze Media Illustration

The numbers of civilian deaths were reported by Gaza’s Ministry of Health, run by the Hamas government. The second “civilian” house has been confirmed to be owned by the Al-Jamal family, whose son, Abdullah Al-Jamal, was a Hamas operative and was complicit with the hostages being held in his house.

Article 34 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits hostage-taking in armed conflicts. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter affirms the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member state. This right, subject to necessity and proportionality, has been invoked in precedents such as the 1976 Israeli Operation Entebbe and supports targeted rescue operations.

Despite a long history of being held to a double standard by much of the international community, Israel continues to demonstrate what it means to value life. The U.N. General Assembly routinely passes more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined, including regimes like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and China.

In contrast, other nations conducting counterterrorism or rescue operations, such as U.S. and French strikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, or broader military campaigns in urban areas, often face far less sustained international condemnation.

The heroic actions of every soldier who took part in Operation Arnon embody the enduring belief that freedom and human dignity are worth fighting for, even at the highest cost. That commitment remains a powerful reminder to the world that some principles are not negotiable.

​Idf, Hostage rescue, October 7, Operation arnon, Gaza, Hamas, Hamas attacks on israel, Un, Iran war, Middle east, Opinion & analysis 

Right now, massive AI data centers are gobbling up rural land, uprooting the farms and ranches that could guarantee America’s food sovereignty.

This Big Tech land-grab is often rationalized with a number of defenses: beating China in the AI race, creating rural jobs and economic growth, and advancing technology and national security.

But Daniel Horowitz insists that we’re being lied to.

“We’re being told that we need to gobble up all of our land — by the way, often with foreign investors — because somehow that is the only way to excel at artificial intelligence,” he says.

But “the surest way of achieving this dystopian nightmare of this techno-feudalism, where we own nothing, is to take the scarcest and most precious resource of land from its decentralized control of American households, homesteaders, ranchers, farmers, small businesses, and centralizing it behind the global tech moguls.”

On this episode of “Conservative Review,” Horowitz, alongside CEO of Fractal Web and AI software expert Michael Cation, dismantles the AI data center advocates’ three biggest arguments.

– YouTube

1. The China argument

According to the data center advocates, America must build massive, hyperscale data centers — and sacrifice rural land and power for them — to achieve AI dominance and beat China in the global race.

But Horowitz calls this a “false choice.”

They argue that this is “the only way of achieving dominance in AI, when in fact, you’re actually going to go backwards and misallocate resources away from what is an auspicious use of AI,” he says.

Further, in trying so hard to build these hyperscale data centers to beat China in the AI race, America is rezoning and handing over huge amounts of rural farmland and power infrastructure to massive corporate developers — many of them foreign-owned. Horowitz points to President Trump recently floating the idea of allowing China to invest $1 trillion in U.S. land and factories.

“We need that to beat China, but then somehow we’re just going to have China own more American infrastructure and land at a time where I thought we all wanted to ban that,” he says, calling it “hypocrisy.”

2. The rural jobs/economic growth argument

Another argument claims that building giant data centers in rural areas will bring thousands of construction and operational jobs, generate big tax revenue, attract more businesses, and deliver much-needed economic growth and prosperity to struggling small towns.

Horowitz condemns this argument as a scam, claiming that these massive centers will only deliver mostly temporary, low-quality construction work performed by imported or illegal labor, destroy productive farmland, spike local crime, and provide almost no lasting economic benefit to actual residents.

“Laramie County Planning Commission is planning an 800-unit man camp that could house up to 5,600 workers, which is more than most towns in Wyoming, and we all know who monopolizes those jobs: a bunch of illegal aliens,” he says.

Citing an article from Wyoming’s Cowboy State Daily outlet, he reads, “Man camps in similar locations have led to an increase in property crime, DUIs, drug crimes, and violent crimes.”

3. The advancing technology and national security argument

Another argument perpetuated by the data center advocates contends that massive, hyperscale data centers are essential for advancing cutting-edge AI technology and protecting national security because only these giant centralized facilities can provide the enormous computing power, massive data processing, and rapid innovation needed to stay ahead of rivals like China in critical areas like defense, intelligence, and technological superiority.

Again, Horowitz throws the red flag. He and Cation dispute this claim by arguing that giant centralized data centers are actually a national security liability and the wrong path for real technological progress.

“AI is not all about cloud-based LLMs for data centers. … With edge computing, you could actually do so much more on local servers, local devices,” says Horowitz.

He points to Israel’s Iron Dome as an example. It’s a highly effective defense system that relies on localized edge computing — fast, on-site AI processing in distributed batteries — rather than depending on giant, vulnerable centralized data centers.

If it did rely on massive data centers, it would “a huge security” risk, especially in Israel’s ongoing war with Iran, he argues.

Cation, an expert in computing infrastructure, drives home the national security point with this powerful rebuttal: “In the defense world … large data centers [are] called high-value targets. … The thing that can’t be destroyed are distributed systems.”

Together, they argue that the real future of secure and effective AI lies in edge computing, narrow AI, and fractal computing — decentralized systems that are faster, cheaper, more resilient, and far less vulnerable than massive, centralized data centers.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

​Ai, Ai data centers, Ai race, Ai race with china, Artificial intelligence, Blaze media, Blazetv, China, Conservative review, Daniel horowitz, Distributed systems, Hyperscale data centers, Technofeudalism, Conservative review with daniel horowitz