Academia fuels the fire that torched Jewish grandmothers in Boulder



It is an eerie and existential feeling to be so close to a terrorist attack, especially with your wife and children.

My family came to Colorado for vacation. We visited Boulder for the mountain views — the kind that lift your eyes toward the heavens and, if you’re paying attention, your heart toward the Creator. But here, where beauty should awaken gratitude, the air smells more like weed than wonder.

While Boulder boasts that it welcomes all 'spiritual paths,' it slams the door on the word of God. It tolerates everything except truth.

Boulder markets itself as spiritual, but it rejects any higher moral authority. Cafés glow with Himalayan salt lamps. Bumper stickers push peace, pansexuality, and “coexistence.” But behind every soft smile, the city enforces a hard orthodoxy — LGBTQ absolutism, DEI dogma, and the gospel of oppressor versus oppressed. You can burn incense. Just don’t quote Moses. You can chant. Just don’t pray to the living God.

Bookstores warn visitors against racism, as if that’s been a problem in their aisles. Trans flags flutter at courthouse doors. Rainbow crosswalks stretch beneath Pride banners. But real justice doesn’t live here any more. The place preaches inclusion and practices exclusion — especially of Christianity.

Hours before Sunday’s fiery attack on mostly elderly women, we passed the Boulder County courthouse on the Pearl Street Mall. My children strolled beside me, laughing in the sun beneath flags meant to signal that biblical morality and equal justice under law are no longer welcome.

Later that day, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, reportedly shouting “free Palestine,” allegedly hurled a Molotov cocktail at a peaceful gathering of people praying for the hostages held in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023.

You might miss Boulder’s spiritual decay if you only look at the Flatirons. But step closer. The library near the creek now serves as a homeless encampment. Spring no longer smells like flowers — it reeks of drugs. Pride Month never ends. Boulder turned it into a liturgical calendar.

And while Boulder boasts that it welcomes all “spiritual paths,” it slams the door on the word of God. It tolerates everything except truth.

Boulder’s decline isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a larger collapse. We buried two Israeli embassy workers gunned down in Washington, D.C. Harvard refused to cooperate with the federal probe into campus anti-Semitism, citing “academic freedom” with zero irony. An MIT commencement speaker scolded graduates for not doing more to “free Palestine.” And across the country, publicly funded professors preach that America’s enemies are “whiteness” and “heteronormativity” — and that resistance justifies any cost.

Sam Harris, atheist poster child of the old intellectual left, recently claimed it would be worth ending democracy to stop a Trump presidency. At my own university, Arizona State, I’ve been forced to complete DEI training, confess “whiteness,” recite native land acknowledgments, and “decolonize” my own syllabus. I’ve been told Christianity is oppressive, gender is infinite, and heteronormativity must go.

This isn’t theory. It’s happening right now. In classrooms. To your kids.

I’m not claiming the Boulder suspect read Ibram X. Kendi before allegedly carrying out his firebombings. But this much is clear: He overstayed his visa, wasn’t deported under the Biden administration, and targeted Jewish women in particular — elderly, peaceful, praying — with fire.

That isn’t coincidence. It fits the anti-Semitic, anti-Western pattern sanctified by academia.

Democrats own this.

RELATED: Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?

Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images

They defend illegal immigration while insisting illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than citizens — ignoring the obvious truth that none of those crimes would happen if they weren’t here at all. They cry “tolerance” while enforcing LGBTQ+ orthodoxy. They call conservatives bigots while defending anti-Semitism as free expression.

Imagine this exchange:

Democrat: “You’re a racist, fascist bigot.”
Republican: “You support anti-Semitism, child mutilation, open borders, and the suppression of Christianity.”
Democrat: “Correct. Read our platform.”

These aren’t insults. These are bragging rights.

As a tenured professor at the largest public university in the country, I can tell you what many humanities programs now teach: grievance. Anger. Victimhood as identity. They don’t educate. They radicalize.

Check the marketing. Many departments proudly list “activist” as a top career goal. They’re not preparing students to build anything. They’re preparing them to burn it down. One poet said the world needs more activists like a fish needs a bicycle. Academia ignored the advice.

Universities now operate like cults of deconstruction. They tear down the Bible, faith, family, and country. They don't ask students to think. They teach them what to think — and who to hate.

No, not every DEI seminar leads to a Molotov cocktail. But when professors claim that Christianity is oppression, that white families are systems of violence, that gender is a fiction, and that America itself is illegitimate — why are we shocked when students act accordingly?

Smerdyakov acted out Ivan Karamazov’s nihilism. Our students are doing the same.

The solution starts here:

Parents — Stop sending your kids to be trained by people who hate you.
Students — Refuse to pay for indoctrination. Ask hard questions. Better yet, avoid the ideologues altogether.
Legislators — Defund institutions that despise your voters.
Pastors — Prepare your congregations for the wolves that wait in lecture halls.
Donors — Close your wallets. They cash your checks and mock your most cherished beliefs.

Universities hide behind “academic freedom.” Fine. But American freedom means you don’t have to subsidize it. You don’t have to pretend not to see the fire.

And even if the Boulder firebomb had no direct tie to campus ideology — if it was just coincidence — we still have to ask: Why are taxpayers funding professors who hand students the ideological Molotovs?

Hey, teachers! Leave them kids alone.

Unhinged leftist female calls out skin color of Tesla Cybertruck driver: 'And you're black? You know he owned people, right?'



A decidedly triggered left-wing motorist was caught on cellphone video berating a Tesla Cybertruck driver on a street — and she actually referenced the Cybertruck driver's skin color.

"Loser!" the female yelled. "And you're black? You know he owned people, right? You know he was a slave owner? How dumb are you? Loser!"

The couple told KVVU they’ve been flipped off while in their Cybertruck before, but Saturday's incident is the most serious interaction so far.

After the Cybertruck driver hollers back at the female a few times to "shut the f**k up!" she is seen on the video speeding in front of the Cybertruck driver, poking her torso out of the driver-side window, and giving one last parting shot: "And you're black! What the [bleeped out]!"

The Cybertruck driver simply laughs before the video ends. You can watch it here.

According to KSNV-TV, a couple indicated that the incident took place around 3 p.m. Saturday as they were making a left turn on Cactus Avenue in the Las Vegas area.

The couple, according to KVVU-TV, noted that the female swerved toward their Cybertruck in an attempt to run their truck into the curb. When video recording of the confrontation began, it captured the female flipping them off, KVVU said. That detail isn't captured in the available video, as the female aggressor is blurred out when she's next to the Cybertruck. However, she isn't blurred out in the part of the clip showing her poking her torso out of the window.

The couple told KVVU they’ve been flipped off while in their Cybertruck before, but Saturday's incident is the most serious interaction so far. The couple added to KVVU that they want to remain anonymous to keep their family safe.

The female's rant about, "You know he owned people, right? You know he was a slave owner?" may be a reference to what Snopes said is a story about the father of Tesla CEO Elon Musk "once owning an emerald mine" that "evolved into a larger rumor that had no evidence to support its central claim."

As readers of Blaze News are well aware, leftists far and wide have been losing their minds ever since Musk earlier this year joined President Donald Trump's team as the leader of the DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency — and began cutbacks. Blaze News has noted documented attacks against Tesla — including arson and vandalism — as well as leftist violence amid the property destruction in more than 20 states.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The racist DEI caste system is coming to an end



While the left continues to brand everything white as “racist,” at some point in our recent history, white people have actually become the unprotected class in America.

However, President Donald Trump’s recent election has the power to change that.

“I do think that this gives the possibility of folding an anti-white discrimination agenda into, like, an actual thing that is not just about white people but about a kind of multiethnic group of people who don’t want to discriminate on the basis of race,” former Stanford research fellow Jeremy Carl tells James Poulos on “Zero Hour.”

“As people on the left try to comprehend what happened with Trump, you’re going to hear a lot more about ‘multi-racial whiteness,’” Carl continues. “What that basically just means functionally is people who are not white who want to be part of the American project and be perceived as normatively American.”

“Which is, of course, a wonderful thing, and we should encourage this, but this drives the left to rage like almost nothing else,” he adds.


Of course, this is because the left would love for all minorities in America to claim their victim card and look to their white, so-called “anti-racist” leaders for guidance.

But over the past four years under Biden, their opposition has begun to fill up with characters who don’t fit the caricature the left has drawn of the racists supposedly running rampant throughout the country.

“This is now becoming a running joke on the internet,” Poulos says. “Most of those guys are themselves Latinos.”

“I’m almost hesitant to say the word 'Nick Fuentes' because I feel like somebody will come out and attack me," Carl chimes in, adding, "I’m summoning the demon, but it’s sort of funny that the kind of most notorious of these so-called white supremacists today is this guy who is at least partially of Latino descent."

“You have some overcompensation going on, right, and I wouldn’t call it so harmless as to be a joke, but it’s a reaction and frustration to the straight jacket that they’re being put in,” he continues, noting that the way these pro-white characters operate isn’t the best path forward in dismantling the racist DEI caste system.

“This can’t just be a project of white people whining about how they’re oppressed and trying to play a victim class and seeing if they can get something against other people,” Carl explains, adding, “It has to be ultimately, a consensus reality that people of a wide variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds agree that we’ve got this problem and are trying to address it.”

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump to cut off South Africa over land confiscation law likely to be weaponized against white farmers



Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa's socialist president, ratified legislation on Jan. 25 enabling the government to seize land without compensation. With white farmers still possessing a great deal of land, the ruling coalition apparently figures the new law for a means of redistributing property to members of a state-preferred racial group.

Citing the Expropriation Act of 2024 as cause, President Donald Trump noted on Truth Social Sunday that he "will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!"

Last year, the U.S. reportedly committed to over $323 million in foreign assistance to South Africa. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump appears poised to shutter, directed the bulk of the funding. In 2023, America poured over $439 million into funding for the African nation.

"South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY," wrote Trump. "It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn't want to so much as mention. A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act."

Under the controversial law, which abrogates the Expropriation Act of 1975, the state can seize land in the name of the "public interest," which is defined to include "the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources in order to redress the results of past racial discriminatory laws or practices," or in the name of "public purpose," which is a flexible term effectively meaning any purpose the state could suggest is "for the benefit of the public."

Although the state could compensate an owner for expropriated property under the law, the state is permitted to pay "nil" if it determines doing so is "just and equitable." When stealing property from landowners, the state must indicate that it has attempted without success to reach an agreement for the acquisition of the property on terms it deems "reasonable."

'Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?'

From the time landowners are informed their property is being stolen to the time they lose possession, they "must take all reasonable steps to maintain the property." Failing to do so, the landowner set to lose their property could also end up on the hook for the perceived amount of the loss in value.

Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, a professor at South Africa's Stellenbosch University, recently hinted that the law will be a tool wielded in a racist manner, stating:

In South Africa's colonial and apartheid past, land distribution was grossly unequal on the basis of race. The country is still suffering the effects of this. So expropriation of property is a potential tool to reduce land inequality. This has become a matter of increasing urgency. South Africans have expressed impatience with the slow pace of land reform.

While South Africa's Marxist-Leninist political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters — whose leader and members routinely chant about murdering white farmers — suggested the law does not go far enough to redistribute land from white farmers to black citizens, other political parties said an earlier draft of the legislation was unconstitutional, reported Bloomberg.

Ramaphosa noted in a statement early Monday, "The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution."

Responding to Trump's threat, the socialist added, "The US remains a key strategic political and trade partner for South Africa. With the exception of PEPFAR Aid, which constitutes 17% of South Africa's HIVAids programme, there is no other funding that is received by South Africa from the United States."

Elon Musk, who was born and raised in South Africa, subsequently asked Ramaphosa, "Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?"

The Free Market Foundation, a libertarian think tank based in Johannesburg, is among the groups critical of the law. Martin van Staden, head of policy at the think tank, noted Monday, "The patriotic thing for South Africans to do is to oppose the government's attempts to implement expropriation without compensation, not to get upset when foreign actors point it out."

"Concealing the absence of compensation in appeals to 'nil' compensation does not cure the Expropriation Act of its confiscatory nature or unconstitutionality," added van Staden.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

NBC White House Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor Doesn’t Deserve A Seat In The Briefing Room

Alcindor is not in the press room for reporting, but to plant seeds that will grow into narratives the left wants the public to believe.

‘I Don’t Know Why I Keep Talking To You’: Jamaal Bowman Dismisses 60% Of Americans Based On Their Skin Color

Any time a leftist politician starts a letter with 'Dear White People' there's a good chance that whatever is said will be steeped in hatred.

University of Michigan axes DEI statements after woke faculty begs for sustained race-obsessed programming



The University of Michigan announced Thursday that it was ending its use of DEI statements in faculty hiring.

This decision — recommended in late October by an eight-member faculty working group and inevitable in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 29, 2023, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard/UNC banning race-based college admission — is sure to disappoint the multitudes of leftists who rallied on campus Monday in support of continued funding for DEI initiatives.

The working group noted in its final recommendations document that while DEI statements have been used at the university for several years, they should no longer be solicited as part of faculty hiring and consideration for promotion, citing feedback from nearly 2,000 faculty members and policies at peer institutions.

"Critics of diversity statements perceive them as expressions of personal identity traits, support of specific ideology or opinions on socially relevant issues, and serve as a 'litmus test' of whether a faculty member's views are politically acceptable," wrote the working group. "Thus, as currently enacted, diversity statements have the potential to limit viewpoints and reduce diversity of thought among faculty members."

While willing to give the DEI statements the boot in theory, the working group found a way to keep the "values of DEI" alive, recommending that applicants should incorporate DEI content into teaching, research, and service statements.

'Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics.'

The university did not enact this second recommendation.

"Diversity, equity, and inclusion are three of our core values at the university. Our collective efforts in this area have produced important strides in opening opportunities for all people," Laurie McCauley, the provost of the university, said in a statement Thursday. "As we pursue this challenging and complex work, we will continuously refine our approach."

"I'm grateful for this faculty committee, which spent months soliciting feedback from across campus, evaluating our methods and determining the best course forward," added McCauley.

Leftists on campus are evidently upset over the potential loss of the divisive and counterproductive tool for indoctrination and gatekeeping. After all, it has been a reliable cash cow that has kept numerous radicals employed.

The New York Times Magazine reported in October that the university had blown nearly $250 million on DEI since 2016. The result: an environment where internal polling reportedly indicated that "students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics" and the creation of "a powerful conceptual framework for student and faculty grievances — and formidable bureaucratic mechanisms to pursue them."

'Some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors.'

A 2021 Heritage Foundation report indicated that Michigan had the largest DEI staff of any major public university on multiple measures, with hundreds of people formally tasked with providing DEI services.

The Times indicated that whereas other universities have seen theirs shrink, Michigan's DEI bureaucracy has actually grown in recent years such that the number of employees operating in DEI-related offices or with "diversity, "equity," or "inclusion" in their job titles at its Ann Arbor campus has actually ballooned by 71% since the school kicked off "D.E.I. 2.0" in 2023.

Those facing the potential loss of titles, jobs, and ideological dominance rallied on campus Monday to protest the possibility of a partial defunding of DEI initiatives at the university — something on which the board of regents is reportedly set to vote.

Pragya Choudhary, among the protesters who attended the rally, which was organized by the senate advisory committee on university affairs, said, "The principles of DEI have positively impacted every person here, and with improvement, DEI initiatives can do even more, but without DEI initiatives, we will all suffer," reported the Michigan Daily.

Su'ad Abdul Khabeer, an associate professor of American culture, said, "Unlike those who claim DEI here at the University of Michigan has done nothing, my critique is we haven't done enough."

Ali Mazrui, a SACUA member and African studies associate chair, suggested that by defunding the race-obsessed programs, the board was surrendering to the incoming Trump administration: "We in faculty government would prefer that the Regents saw themselves as representing us and the people of the state rather than bowing prematurely to a government that is likely to be hostile to DEI. … Acquiescing too early, too easily, without protest, is the way that totalitarian governments come to power."

"The Regents were interested in potentially doing away with the use of diversity statements for faculty hiring," Kevin Cokley, the psychology department's associate chair for diversity initiatives, told the Daily. "It is not a surprise to me that now there are some concerns about the potential dismantling of DEI initiatives at large."

Sarah Hubbard, on the board of regents, said, "The national conversation has highlighted the need to be sure there are results and that all people are being represented under these DEI programs."

A study published last week by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University conclude that "while purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Damning study reveals what DEI does to people — and unsurprisingly, it's really bad



Few public and private institutions proved resistant in recent years to infection by the race-obsessive ideology underpinning the diversity, equity, and inclusion movement. The body politic appears, however, to be experiencing a belated immune response.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard/UNC, for instance, helped pave the way for the dismantling of DEI on college and university campuses nationwide. Lawsuits and federal civil rights complaints targeting companies' DEI initiatives immediately followed. Likely keen to avoid similar legal challenges and facing pressure from normalcy advocates, multiple American organizations once captive to the race-obsessed program, including Ford, Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply, Jack Daniel's, and Walmart, have abandoned DEI.

A study published Monday by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University provided strong justification for why Americans should dismantle the remainder of the DEI regime sooner rather than later, noting that race-obsessed programming is divisive, counterproductive, and helps create authoritarians.

'Some DEI programs not only fail to achieve their goals but can actively undermine efforts.'

The study, titled "Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias," noted at the outset that a Pew Research Center study found in 2023 that over half of American workers have DEI meetings or trainings at work.

While the re-education that the majority of American workers are compelled to undergo is supposedly intended to increase empathy in interpersonal interactions, cultivate inclusive environments, and maximize diversity on the basis of immutable characteristics and sexual preferences, the study indicated that there is evidence to suggest "that some DEI programs not only fail to achieve their goals but can actively undermine efforts."

"Specifically, mandatory trainings that focus on particular target groups can foster discomfort and perceptions of fairness," said the study. "DEI initiatives seen as affirmative action rather than business strategy can provoke backlash, increasing rather than reducing racial resentment. And diversity initiatives aimed at managing bias can fail, sometimes resulting in decreased representation and triggering negativity among employees."

The researchers collected various DEI education materials used across three groupings — race, religion, and caste — in "interventional and educational settings," excerpted rhetoric from the materials, then employed the excerpts in psychological surveys "measuring explicit bias, social distancing, demonization, and authoritarian tendencies." Participants in the study were also tasked with reviewing the materials or neutral control materials.

The results were damning.

The researchers found that across all three groupings, participants "engendered a hostile attribution bias, amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice."

In one test, researchers split 423 Rutgers University students into two groups. One group read an apolitical control essay about American corn production while the other read an essay incorporating racist CRT propaganda from Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo.

After each group completed reading their assigned materials, participants were presented with a "racially neutral scenario" — where a student's application to an elite East Coast university was rejected following his interview by an admissions officer — and asked questions about their perceptions of racism in the interaction. The scenario did not mention the race of either the hypothetical student or the admissions officer.

'Exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.'

The group previously provided with propaganda from Kendi and DiAngelo reportedly "developed a hostile attribution bias ... perceiv[ing] the admissions officer as significantly more prejudiced than did those who read the neutral corn essay."

According to the researchers, "Participants exposed to the anti-racist rhetoric perceived more discrimination from the admissions officer (~21%), despite the complete absence of evidence of discrimination. They believed the admissions officer was more unfair to the applicant (~12%), had caused more harm to the applicant (~26%), and had committed more microaggressions (~35%)."

Simply put, Kendi and DiAngelo had students seeing racism and unfairness that wasn't there.

In the other groupings, participants provided DEI materials similarly turned out nastier than the control group.

For instance, in the caste study, Adolf Hitler quotes resonated with participants who were exposed to DEI materials when the word "Jew" was swapped out for "Brahmin."

"These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism," wrote the researchers.

"When DEI initiatives typically affirm the laudable goals of combating bias and promoting inclusivity, an emerging body of research warns that these interventions may foster authoritarian mindsets, particularly when anti-oppressive narratives exist within an ideological and vindictive monoculture," said the study. "The push toward absolute equity can undermine pluralism and engender a (potentially violent) aspiration of ideological purity."

The paper concluded, "The evidence presented in these studies reveals that while purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After Years Of Dehumanizing Trumpers As Nazi Deplorables, Democrats’ ‘Garbage’ Walkbacks Ring Hollow

Democrats' problem isn't that their leader just said the quiet part out loud. It's that they've been so loud about their disdain for Trump supporters for so long.

Pelosi has 'deplorable' moment, implies many Republicans too racist, sexist to support Harris



Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, one of the most powerful and influential Democrats in America, has implied that nearly one-third of all Republicans are too racist, sexist, and homophobic to support Kamala Harris for president in 2024.

That remark came on Saturday, when Pelosi sat down with journalist Kara Swisher, host of the podcast "On with Kara Swisher," at the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival in Austin, Texas.

'You can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables.'

Pelosi and Swisher touched on a number of topics, including why former President Donald Trump is still doing so well against Harris in the 2024 presidential polls.

When Swisher asked Pelosi whether she was "worried" about Trump's possible re-election, Pelosi suggested that "30%" of Republican voters are just too bigoted to consider voting for Democrats.

"There are people who will never be, shall we say, inclined to support Democrats because of — they just have a different orientation toward women, people of color, LGBTQ, you know, they just are not ever going to be there," Pelosi replied. "So say that's about like 30% or something like that — of the Republicans."

As the Post Millennial noted, this response from Pelosi was remarkably similar to an infamous statement from Hillary Clinton that likely helped sink her presidential campaign against Trump in 2016. At the time, Clinton characterized "half" of Trump's supporters — in other words, a large segment of the American electorate — as "deplorable."

"You can put half of Trump's supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up."

Pelosi also indicated to Swisher that some Republicans are just "very rich people" who could not care less about "clean air or clean water." They just don't want to pay taxes, she claimed.

Perhaps to soften her remarks, Pelosi then quickly added that some of Trump's supporters have concerns about globalization and immigration. "I think we have to be as respectful and understanding as possible," Pelosi told Swisher.

Despite that call for comity, Pelosi also inexplicably stated that some Republicans feared "innovation."

"They saw the factory down the road move overseas," Pelosi explained. "They're fearful of innovation."

She then tried to give an example: "My father is a truck driver, and now they're going to have all of, you know ..."

As the 84-year-old congresswoman then appeared stuck, Swisher jumped in and added "autonomous truck." "Yeah, and so, so the innovation, globalization, and they include immigration in there," Pelosi continued.

She also insisted that "migration" is not actually a "big job-taker" and that it "fuels the economy."

Another moment from Pelosi and Swisher's hour-long conversation also went viral. At one point, Swisher asked Pelosi to give Trump advice for his debate against Harris on Tuesday night.

"You think he’s gonna show up?" Pelosi asked.

Swisher appeared surprised by the question. "I do. Do you know something that I don't know?" Swisher replied as the audience chuckled in amusement.

"I know cowardice when I see it," Pelosi answered.

In response to a request for comment from Fox News Digital, Steven Cheung of the Trump campaign called Pelosi a "liar and fraud" who "has no idea what she is talking about." Cheung also called the suggestion that Trump would not appear at the debate "fake news."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!