Bruce Power

Daisy Group

“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

A sampling of next week’s column:

Good God! It’s a veritable constitutional crisis. Just ask Adam Radwanski: the scandalous understaffing issue has “cast a surreal haze” over Ottawa, he wrote in the Globe. Governance is accordingly moving “at a glacial pace” – and, accordingly, “Ottawa crawls.” Says he: “Settling into any sort of rhythm has been made impossible by Justin Trudeau, his chief-of-staff and others spending much of the time since his swearing-in halfway around the world at international summits.”

Ah, yes, those silly international summits, dealing with piddling issues like climate change, refugees, the international economy and what happened in Paris on Friday the 13th. I mean, who cares, really? Can’t you just see Prime Minister Trudeau, being jarred awake by his frantic spouse during the wee hours at the Commonwealth Conference in Malta?

“Justin, Justin!” says the panicked Sophie Trudeau. “This shocking neglect has gone on long enough! You must finally decide who will be the speechwriter to our nation’s Minister of Sport!”

What genius. NOFX: Kill All The White Man.

And here is another reason why I adore Kathleen Wynne. She saw a mistake, and she fixed it, fast.

Great, great news.

All right here, on iTunes podcast thingy. Anthony Calvillo, me, et al.

At the outset, let me say that I am a card-carrying Ontario Liberal, and I have worked for the party, off and on, for two decades.

But I am also a citizen who has fought Big Tobacco for just as long. I literally despise them, and I have fought them, because – inter alia – they killed my father.  They’ve killed lots of fathers and mothers and others, in fact.

So what are we to make of this story, which is being reported in many, many places? Is it true?

“For years now it’s been illegal for people to light up in many public places across the province. But that’s about to change, as long as the person smoking has a doctor’s note.

This means medical marijuana users can light up in restaurants, at work or on playgrounds.

As long as they have a doctor’s prescription they’re exempt from the laws that prohibit cigarette smoking and e-cigarette vaping in most public places in Ontario. Dipika Damerla, the Associate Health Minister says these new regulations are about letting people who are very sick or in a lot of pain take their prescribed medication when they need to.”

I have contacted several senior people in the government to find out if this story is true. I’ve contacted long-time opponents of Big Tobacco, like Michael Perley, too. It’s early, and I haven’t heard back.

Is it a case of a junior Minister being ambushed in a scrum? There’s no press release about it on the relevant ministry web site. Is it a case of several reporters getting the facts wrong? That’s possible, but I doubt it.

Whatever the circumstances, rest assured: you’re going to see folks clutching a print out of these news stories, and lighting up in playgrounds, restaurants and showings of The Peanuts Movie near you, starting soon. And you won’t be able to do a damn thing about it.

The problem, here, isn’t about decriminalizing marijuana (because it should be) or medicinal marijuana (because a small minority of people should be permitted to use it). The problem is that Big Tobacco has been waiting for this opening for decades. For them, it is a gift. It rolls back decades of hard work.

Don’t believe me? Here’s researchers Rachel Ann Barry, Heikki Hiilamo and Stanton Glantz, writing in a June 2014 paper in the Milbank Quarterly, which focuses on population health and health policy:

“Since at least the 1970s, tobacco companies have been interested in marijuana and marijuana legalization as both a potential and a rival product. As public opinion shifted and governments began relaxing laws pertaining to marijuana criminalization, the tobacco companies modified their corporate planning strategies to prepare for future consumer demand.

In many ways, the marijuana market of 2014 resembles the tobacco market before 1880, before cigarettes were mass produced using mechanization and marketed using national brands and modern mass media…Legalizing marijuana opens the market to major corporations, including tobacco companies, which have the financial resources, product design technology to optimize puff-by-puff delivery of a psychoactive drug (nicotine), marketing muscle, and political clout to transform the marijuana market.”

And, from pro-weed media:

“Representatives from both British American Tobacco and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. said they currently have no plans for expansion into the cannabis market. But the Milbank report – citing recently unearthed documents – found that major cigarette brands began researching cannabis opportunities in the late 1960s and early 1970s despite denying it at the time.

An executive with Philip Morris even asked the Justice Department for samples of marijuana so that it could perform research on the plant. The executive asked the government to keep the request silent. A Justice Department representative reportedly agreed, saying the company could also sidestep the FDA’s review of its plans.

One internal memo from the American Tobacco Co. at the time reports that executives learned Philip Morris was granted a “special permit” to grow and manufacture cannabis extracts. The head science adviser with British American Tobacco even drafted a research plan for cannabis-loaded cigarettes.”

This decision – if it is for real – is a sure-fire formula for confrontation, litigation and lots and lots of class actions. It is a huge, huge mistake.

By all means, let people who are legitimately entitled to use a medicinal product to do so. But not in public places, where smoking as been banned for years – and for good reason, too.

Who’s with me?

The usual suspects on the, er, cringe Right are apparently apoplectic about the way Justin Trudeau expresses himself. As such, they have been circulating the quote below on social media today, because they are in high dudgeon, etc. etc.

Personally, I think it’s brilliant, because it strongly resembles this proven classic. I therefore offer it up to you here, to clip and save. Put it on the fridge, so your kids can see it and use it on their next exam. 


(Lisa will cheat, meanwhile.)

Seriously, however, we have looked into sponsoring a family of Syrian refugees.  Is there any way of doing it so that it is a bit less costly than at present?  Anyone know?



Screen Shot 2015-11-25 at 8.22.30 AM


20,000 Twitter followers! I’ve got more than Ralph Goodale and Michelle Rempel, notwithstanding my IQ is considerably less than theirs.  Not bad!

Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper are in no immediate danger of me overtaking them, however.



Everyone has their own theory, these days, about why the world is going to shit. Mine is poverty, plus technology. ‎


So, flying el Al into Israel for the first time, two miles up, I could literally see where Israel started, and where it ended. Israel, from the air, is green and lush. It is an oasis. All the countries arrayed around it mostly aren’t: they are a vastness of parched and barren dirt. They are landfill disguised as countries. Looking down at it all, I said to my traveling companion: “Well, that explains a thing or two.”


Same with Dallas, years before, where I lived when I was a kid. I remember it, because I was scared. We weren’t rich, not by a long shot, but when my Dad got lost one day with me and my Mom and brothers in our shiny new American Motors station wagon – and there we were, at a red light in South Dallas, below the Trinity River – I could feel several pairs of eyes on us.

One moment, everything was orderly and familiar; the next moment, it wasn’t. We were stopped in a poor neighbourhood, and it felt like everyone was staring at us, the kids included. Some of them were around my age, eight or nine. “Hey, Daddy,” I apparently said. “That boy looks really mad.”


Bear with me, here, but those kinds of memories – and a dozen of others like them, in different times and places – always leads me back to the same place. Which, somewhat improbably, is Ottawa in the sunny and warm Fall of 31 years ago, when Pope John Paul II came to visit. It was a big deal, his Canadian tour, and he was a rock star, the first celebrity Pope. ‎

I was and am a Catholic, but not ever preoccupied by what popes and priests have to say. I am drawn to the ritual in my religion, the ineffable infinitude of it. The word itself – catholic – means universal. I am attracted to Catholicism because its rituals are more or less the same wherever you go on the planet. And, as such, it ministers equally to the rich and the poor. Or so the theory goes.‎

Anyway: Pope John Paul came to the world’s attention when he angrily sided with poor trade unionists in Gdansk’s port in 1980. He did so again in September 1984, at the end of his twelve-day Canadian jaunt, when he angrily sided with the world’s poor. After genially receiving all the Premiers and Ministers and the Prime Minister – after cheerfully blessing everyone and saying lots of Masses – Pope John Paul got mad, and he reminded me about that wrong turn in Dallas, or the view of Israel, as seen from above. ‎

The poor of the world grow angry, he said. The anger is about the “excesses” of our lives in the First World, that are too often “irresponsible and barren.” The world’s poor are denied most of what those of us in North America and Europe take for granted – but, increasingly, technology is making them intimately aware of what we have, and what they do not. And no one should be surprised when they rise up, therefore, and they strike out at us. ‎

Said John Paul II to the crowds in Ottawa in September 1984: “A society where profit-making efficiency has become an idol! Your choices amaze and irritate the world – but they never leave it indifferent!”

He was angry, a surprised media reported at the time, thirty years before his prophecy – in its most benign form (the Occupy movement), and its most murderous form (ISIS) – came true. Our excesses, he warned us, were stirring up a tsunami of anger and hate, and leaving no one indifferent. And the ubiquity of technology in the world’s poorest places was‎ making it possible. Inevitable, even.

Even now – more than three decades later – I will sometimes look at a photograph in a newspaper, or some footage in a news item. And there it will be – a Samsung TV in a corner of a dilapidated shack, or a smart phone clutched in a dirty hand in a slum somewhere – all testifying to the Pope’s prescience. Technology has spread more quickly than prosperity. ‎

Anyone involved in daily politics, as I once was, knows immediately what this means: resentment, then anger, then hate. Every campaign seeking to replace a powerful incumbent trades in resentments. It works.

It is not by coincidence, to me, that ISIS has embraced YouTube and Twitter to broadcast its beheadings and mass-murders: the Islamic State is simply making efficient use of the same technologies through which it was alerted to our excesses in the first place. The Internet let them know about how we live: to them, we are too secular, too immoral, and too suffused with greed and self-indulgence.

They saw that, via a flickering blue screen somewhere in Pakistan, and they are hitting “reply all” to express what they think about it. And what they intend to do about it, too: convert us, or murder us for our excesses. ‎

From afar, I have long admired Islam. It has no priests, no papal tours, no palatial cathedrals. It has only its book, and its core meaning – Islam, meaning submission – and its people, who will shortly number more than any other on the planet.

Muslims have faith, and we increasingly do not. Muslims have certainty, while we endlessly cast about for meaning. Muslims have identity, and none of us in the West have had that for quite some time. ‎

Most of all – harkening back to the words of that Catholic pope, in Ottawa, Ontario, of all places – Islam has become the religion of the poor. And, now that they have taken in a few episodes of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous – or a reality show like Intervention or Hoarders – they are pissed, and understandably so. ‎‎

Lots of essays get written about what ISIS is and what it isn’t. To me, the Islamic State’s name says it all: they want a state of their own, one where Islam occupies the spot presently held by Dollarama and the Kardashians in our own. ‎

Their preferred weapons are not necessarily the Kalishnikovs they carried through Paris streets, or the explosives they used to blow a jetliner of Russian tourists out of the sky. Those are symptoms, not the cause.

Their weapon of choice, instead, is a smartphone. A smartphone provides snapshots of the way in which we live, and how we are. If you are in the anger business, it is the best recruitment tool in the history of the world. ‎

With that rage about our excesses – and with Islam, the religion of the poor – they intend to conquer the world. ‎

And their‎ war is underway, whether you care to admit it or not.