admin
Rob Finnerty rightly called out the Democrats’ recent flirtation with the phrase “stolen land” as yet another rhetorical cudgel aimed at dividing Americans instead of uniting them. On his show Finnerty pushed back against the theatrical, self-flagellating language that now crops up at legislative openings and public events, and he reminded viewers that patriotism is supposed to bind citizens together rather than tear history into partisan shreds.
Across the country you see the same pattern: staged acknowledgements at capitols, campuses, and rallies that reduce complex history to a simple, accusatory slogan. In Washington state protesters and events have openly embraced rhetoric like “no one is illegal on stolen land,” turning every public moment into a performance of grievance rather than a search for constructive solutions.
This isn’t harmless symbolic speech — it’s an ideology that insists our nation’s founding is illegitimate and that every American must bear shame for the sins of the past. Institutions are increasingly urged to insert “stolen land” language into ceremonies and policies, a move that academics and commentators warn can politicize education and public life while offering no real remedy to the problems Indigenous people face today.
Democrats have turned history into a political weapon: recite the correct confession, accept the prescribed guilt, and the left will allow you into the club. Meanwhile, real issues — public safety, good schools, job creation, and support for every citizen including Native communities — are shoved aside for virtue-signaling gestures that change little and inflame many.
Conservatives should not oppose honoring Indigenous history or the sacrifices of those who came before us; we oppose the reduction of our national story to a single, accusatory phrase that erases complexity and sows resentment. Patriotism means acknowledging history honestly while also celebrating the principles that made America a unique force for freedom and opportunity; let’s demand policies that actually help communities rather than theatrical admissions of collective guilt.
In preparing this commentary I reviewed coverage of Finnerty’s remarks and reporting on the rise of “stolen land” language in public ceremonies; Newsmax carries the Finnerty program and related segments, while local reporting and opinion pieces document how land-acknowledgement rhetoric has spread into civic life. Detailed transcripts of every Finnerty segment were not available in the public record I reviewed, but the broader pattern of performative acknowledgements and the conservative pushback against them is clear from the reporting and analysis.
