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

Hope so. We shall see. They are, as Bernard-Henri Lévy said, indisputably the enemy, now. 

“Today we sent a clear, unambiguous message that there will be no respite from our collective efforts to stop, suppress and destroy ISIS. “

It amazes me, frankly, that there is a hotter debate on what to do about Syrian refugees than there is on what to do about the genocidal subhumans who made them refugees in the first place – the enemy, ISIS.

But that’s just me, I guess. What do you think? Everyone’s got an opinion on this one, so feel free to weigh in, here and in comments.


He’s got a book out, and he’s talking to the media, too. Canada AM clip right here.

Miss this guy. We had a great, great team, too. 



It’s a doozy.

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 how we live: to them, 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: convert us, or murder us for our excesses.

Two years, six months and 25 days.

That, according to the U.K. polling firm One Poll, is how long the average honeymoon lasts. They contacted 5,000 British couples a few years back, and determined that is when the proverbial bloom goes off the metaphorical rose. After 937 days, both sides “start to take each other for granted,” One Poll decreed. When you start to take each other for granted, apparently, the honeymoon is over.

In the Canadian political context, it’s hard to say when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s honeymoon will end. No one knows for sure, but it certainly seems durable, doesn’t it? Based upon a highly-scientific analysis of the political environment, however, we think the Trudeau Honeymoon™ is going to outlast Keith Richards, who has been beating the odds since Jesus was a little feller. As in, it will last forever.

That, at least, is what despairing Conservatives and New Democrats seem to think. Instead of raising questions about actual issues — you know, stuff like whether the City of Montreal should be permitted to DUMP EIGHT BILLION LITRES OF RAW SEWAGE INTO THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER — the opposition has given up. So sayeth B.C. NDP Kennedy Stewart: “There’s going to be quite a long honeymoon for Mr. Trudeau, and I think the public does not expect us to go out and…being intensely adversarial for the next little while.” Nothing to see here, show’s over, everyone move along, etc.

Instead of being the opposition, then, Conservatives and New Democrats have devoted themselves to being sucky, whiny babies. In opinion columns, in social media, and on call-in shows, Tories and Dippers have taken to whinging and mewling about how nice the media are being to the newly-minted Trudeau government, and how unfair it all is.

Perhaps forgetting that every major newspaper in Canada (save one) endorsed them in 2011 — and that every Postmedia newspaper did likewise in 2015 — Conservative partisans have determined that Trudeau is being treated with kid-gloves by the news media. Left-lib bias, Media Party, and blah, blah, blah. “If I see one more breathless media report about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau going trick-or-treating with his kids, or being greeted like a rock star by giddy civil servants, I’m going to be sick,” sniffed conservative columnist Luisa D’Amato. (Stock up on Tums, Luisa.)

Likewise Sun Media funny man Mike Strobel: “[Trudeau’s popularity] could plummet, of course, as soon as he royally screws up the country and Canadians snap out of their Trudeaumania II trance!” (When you awake from your trance, Mike, you will love your new Socialist Overlords.)

The party of previously-Angry Tom Mulcair, who — while declining to attack Trudeau themselves—are equally upset that nobody else will attack Trudeau. They’re a bit more discreet about it, though. Why? Well, after Toronto-Danforth NDP incumbent Craig Scott bleated on Facebook about the injustice of Trudeau’s win — and how Liberal MPs were “fundamentally lazy,” “passive,” arrogant,” and how the electoral system that previously worked quite well for him was “broken” — Scott was excoriated, coast to coast, for being the biggest sore loser of all time. Dippers took note, and resolved to suck on their sour grapes in private. But like the Tories, they’re similarly convinced that an unholy Liberal-Media alliance is at work, controlling events like the Bilderbergs and the Wizard of Oz, all rolled into one.

Sorry to disappoint, Reformatories and Dippers: there’s no conspiracy. It’s just a garden-variety political honeymoon. And everyone gets one, as you well know.

Take Stephen Harper, for example. His honeymoon was arguably the longest-lasting of any recent Canadian Prime Minister: he started off with a minority in 2006 — and got one again in 2008 — and then became sufficiently popular to win a whopping Parliamentary majority in 2011. His honeymoon, you can fairly say, lasted about half a decade.

So too various New Democrat luminaries. Alberta Premier Rachel Notley — who grieving New Democrats now regularly point to, as if she were a sort of latter-day Saint Elizabeth, sent to pacify their wounded souls — has had a honeymoon that is still going strong. Even after unveiling the most reviled Alberta budget in eons, Notley’s NDP remain ahead of all of their political opponents. And a September Angus Reid Group poll decreed that Notley was the second-most-popular Premier in the country (after Brad Wall, natch), with a 50 per cent approval rating — meaning her honeymoon has lasted at least a year.

Brokenhearted Conservatives and New Democrats should console themselves with this fact: everyone gets a honeymoon, pretty much. It matters not how disputatious and divisive things are at the end of the relationship — at the start, for most political leaders, it’s usually all sunshine and daisies. (And, apparently, sunny ways.)

So, this, too, is a fact about honeymoons: everyone deserves at least one in their lifetime.

And everyone eventually sees their honeymoon come to an ignominious end.

I am still fighting the appalling attempt by former Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin and his senior staff to have me disciplined by the Law Society of Upper Canada – and potentially disbarred – simply for being critical of him on this web site.  More here.

They’re not suing me for defamation, I suspect, because they know they’d lose. So they are going after me in a less-public way, presumably because they want to destroy my professional reputation.

This battle will likely go on for many months.  If you want to help defray the costs, which will be significant, please use the donate button to the left. (It’s only fair, since Marin’s costs, and that of his senior hirelings, is being paid for by you – the Ontario taxpayer.)

Lawyers and others who want to assist, please email me confidentially at We can use all the help we can get – and several free speech organizations are now indicating they may do likewise.

Why is this fight important?  Well, remember the words of Cory, J., in R. V. Kopyto:

“It is difficult to imagine a more important guarantee of freedom to a democratic society than that of freedom of expression. A democracy cannot exist without the freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. These opinions may be critical of existing practices in public institutions and of the institutions themselves. However, change for the better is dependent upon constructive criticism. Nor can it be expected that criticism will always be muted by restraint. Frustration with outmoded practices will often lead to vigorous and unpropitious complaints. Hyperbole and colourful, perhaps even disrespectful language, may be the necessary touchstone to fire the interest and imagination of the public, to the need for reform, and to suggest the manner in which that reform may be achieved.

The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies. Caustic and biting debate is, for example, often the hallmark of election campaigns, parliamentary debates and campaigns for the establishment of new public institutions or the reform of existing practices and institutions. The exchange of ideas on important issues is often framed in colourful and vitriolic language. So long as comments made on matters of public interest are neither obscene nor contrary to the laws of criminal libel, citizens of a democratic state should not have to worry unduly about the framing of their expression of ideas. The very life-blood of democracy is the free exchange of ideas and opinions. If these exchanges are stifled, democratic government itself is threatened.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that the first step taken by totalitarian regimes is to muzzle the media and then the individual in order to prevent the dissemination of views and opinions that may be contrary to those of the government. The vital importance of freedom of expression cannot be overemphasized. It is important in this context to note that s. 2(b) of the Charter is framed in absolute terms…The rights entrenched in s. 2(b) should therefore only be restricted in the clearest of circumstances. [Courts and the like] are bound to be the subject of comment and criticism. Not all will be sweetly reasoned. An unsuccessful litigant may well make comments after the decision is rendered that are not felicitously worded. Some criticism may be well founded, some suggestions for change worth adopting. But the courts are not fragile flowers that will wither in the hot heat of controversy. Rules of evidence, methods of procedure and means of review and appeal exist that go far to establishing a fair and equitable rule of law. The courts have functioned well and effectively in difficult times. They are well-regarded in the community because they merit respect. They need not fear criticism nor need they seek to sustain unnecessary barriers to complaints about their operations or decisions.”



In the past week or so, nearly 600 people have been murdered by ISIS or its affiliates – in Kenya, Lebanon, France and on a Russian airliner. The battle, once mainly confined to Iraq and Syria, is no longer. As I wrote in Unholy Alliances 23 years ago, outlaw Islamist nations will always export war to Western democracies, because they feel they have a divine mandate to do so. We are at the start of a potentially 1,000-year military struggle - a Crusades in reverse.

So, what should we do? Since Friday night, everyone I have met has mentioned the Paris attacks, Canada’s role in Obama’s coalition, the 25,000 Syrian refugees, or some combination thereof. And, since Friday night, no one has known what to do.

Justin Trudeau, as a Prime Minister leading a majority government, has a clear mandate: to withdraw from the air campaign against ISIS, and to get 25,000 Syrian refugees here before year end.  You may not like that, but that’s what he was elected to do.

As regulars know, I strongly – strongly – disagreed with the former promise, and was somewhat skeptical about the latter. I disagreed with the withdrawal promise because I have always felt that, when genocide is taking place on a wide scale, we have an obligation to react with more than mere words. And I was skeptical about the refugee promise because I felt – as do most refugee settlement agencies – that it is impossible to humanely settle that many people in that short period of time.

But that’s me. What do you think? Already, Liberal-friendly pundits – here and here and here – are suggesting that Trudeau must reconsider. Personally, I’m not so sure: notwithstanding what I feel, and what I said above, I am above all a democrat – and Trudeau’s position was clear, and it was legitimized by the millions of votes he received. He has a mandate.

That said, this poll, to give others their say. I’ve tried to give what I think are the real options; if I’ve left any out, I apologize. But by all means, let me know what you think.