Friday, August 25, 2017


 ESPN under fire for pulling announcer from UVA game
 Published on Aug 23, 2017
Conservative Review's Deneen Borelli on the fallout over ESPN removing announcer Robert Lee from their coverage of a University of Virginia football game.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 FRANKFORT, Ky. — A prominent professing atheist 
organization characterized the Bible as a “violent, racist book” in 
scolding the governor of Kentucky over his recent remarks lamenting the 
ramifications of removing the Bible from public schools.
Gov. Matt Bevin appeared on the Tom Roten Morning Show on Aug. 15, where he discussed the public unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia, as well as a recent bill he signed dubbed as the “Bible Literacy Bill.”
“When you go back a couple of hundred years, in most instances the only textbooks that were in our public schools were the Bible,” he said. “And so to that end to pretend, again, to scrub history and pretend that that wasn’t reality, I think is a dangerous precedent.”
“And it’s interesting, the more we’ve removed any sense of spiritual obligation or moral higher authority or absolute right and wrong, the more we’ve removed things that are biblically taught from society, the more we’ve seen the kind of mayhem that we were just discussing,” Bevin stated.

However, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) soon fired off a letter to Bevin to take issue with his words, which they characterized as being “inflammatory.” It asserted that the Bible is rather a “violent, racist book” that was used to justify slavery in American history.
“The Bible is a violent, racist book that has inspired violent, racist organizations,” wrote Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Ironically, the Bible that you want to unconstitutionally interject in public schools encourages violence and racism. Inculcating more American children in the ways of the Bible would not have prevented Charlottesville.”
The two opined that God’s selection of the Jews as His chosen people can cause feelings of supremacy. Citing Scriptural examples of the battles that the people of Israel fought against heathen nations on the way to the promised land—which they referred to as God ordering genocide—FRF said that telling believers that they are “part of the chosen few” can lead to racism.

“The Bible is rife with such harmful supremacist teachings: ‘The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be His people, His treasured possession,’ Deut. 7:6,” Barker and Gaylor stated.
They also contended that the KKK professes to be Christian, and that Adolph Hitler was Roman Catholic.
“If you want less violence, less religion is a good place to start. Your inflammatory comments were short on facts, history, and reality, much less a reverence for the First Amendment and its Establishment Clause,” FFRF wrote. “Please do not misuse your public office to promote your personal religion.”
The atheistic Church-State separation group had previously denounced Bevin for calling for local churches to organize prayer walks in Louisville to help curb violence in the city.
“You don’t need permission from me how to do it. You know, you walk to a corner, pray for the people, talk to people along the way,” he told a group of pastors in June. “No songs, no singing, no bullhorn, no tee shirts, no chanting. Be pleasant, talk to the people, that’s it.”
Bevin, a Southern Baptist, has likewise urged the Body of Christ to open their homes to foster children and those needing forever families. Bevin himself is an adoptive father.
“Three hundred and fifty—plus or minus—young people are right now fully able to and desirous of being adopted. There’s more than 6,000 churches in Kentucky. There should not be any child in Kentucky able to be adopted, ready to adopted, wanting to be adopted, who does not have a home,” he declared at the “Summit to Save Our Children,” becoming visibly grieved.
1 John 4:20-21 reads, “If a man say, ‘I love God,’ and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from Him: that he who loveth God love his brother also.”
1 John 3:14-15 also reads, “We know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”
1 Corinthians 13 likewise instructs Christians that without love toward their fellow man, “I am nothing,” and then defines love in detail.
“Charity (love) suffereth long, and is kind, charity envieth not, charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things [and] endureth all things.”




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
USA – -( Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we are talking about the epic ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals tossing the “good reason” requirement for a carry permit in the trash. Bear with me this is huge and there’s a lot to explain.
If you are a NRA life member, an annual member for the past five years, or know someone who is, head on over to to get a petition to place me on the ballot for the NRA Board of Directors in 2018.
For those of you that have been paying attention, you may have known that the District of Columbia has been the subject of a lot of litigation over the past two decades in relation to firearms. The original Heller, that we talk about all the time, struck down a 1976 ban on the possession of handguns, followed by a decision tossing aside the District’s total ban on carrying firearms. To circumvent that decision, the District of Columbia implemented a requirement that an individual show “good reason” to be granted a concealed carry pistol license. And yes, that’s what a carry permit is called in DC.
Carry licenses were issued subject to the chief of police’s discretion. The law authorized the Chief to issue a license to anyone who “has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he or she is a suitable person” to be licensed. You may have heard this “good reason” also referred to as “good cause” and you can find similar laws in places like California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
The law also enable the Chief to establish criteria to determine whether a person had established “good reason”. In order to demonstrate “good reason” to fear injury, an applicant must “at a minimum [show] of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” So basically, you had to prove that your life was worth of defending.
The other option would be for applicants to apply under the “other proper reason for carrying” criteria. These applicants had to show that they were employed in a manner that required the carrying of cash or other valuable objects transported on their person. So for example a person who regularly carried diamonds on their person in the course of business may have qualified for a license. The regulations implemented by the Chief also gave individuals the ability to apply if they had a close relative who was so physically or mentally incapacitated that they could not defend themselves. Simply put, a very small percentage of law-abiding citizens would qualify, leaving the majority unable to procure a license.
This provision was challenged by a man named Brian Wrenn, as well as the Second Amendment Foundation and two of its members all in one lawsuit. Another man named Matthew Grace and the Pink Pistols challenged the provision in another lawsuit. For those of you who are unaware, the Pink Pistols are a LGBTQ organization who advocates for the use of lawfully-owned and lawfully-concealed firearms for the self-defense of the sexual minority community. Both suits requested a preliminary injunction to be issued. If you don’t recall what a preliminary injunction is go check out the video I did on the California injunction, there’s a link in the description or if you’re watching on YouTube, you can click the card up in the corner.
The District Court denied the preliminary injunction requested by Wrenn but granted the one asked for by Grace. As a result, in both instances, the parties appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals which consolidated the cases and heard them together.
The Court was left to determine whether the “good reason” requirement impeded on a “core” Second Amendment right. It began the analysis by looking at the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller. Finding that the Second Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” was self defense, and that the text of the amendment protects the right to “keep” and “bear” arms, the Court determined that it was “more natural to view the Amendment’s core as including a law-abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.” The Court specifically noted that the Heller decision found “ to “bear” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” As a result that definition shows that the Amendment’s core must span…[to] the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This analysis was bolstered by a long line of cases the Court quickly recounted.
After determining that the “good reason” law burdened a “core” right, the Court looked at several other arguments. First, it examined the argument set forth by the District of Columbia which stated that densely populated or crowded areas were excluded from the right to carry a firearm. This argument was premised on old English law, which had banned such conduct dating back to 1328. The District argued that because similar laws had found their way to the colonies by the 1700s and later on to the states by the mid-to-late 1800s, the “core” right to carry did not apply to those areas. Yes, that’s right, they’re citing to a law from the 1300s.
Fortunately, the Court quickly dismissed such an illogical argument. It noted that due to Heller “we can sidestep the historical debate on how the first Northampton law might have hindered Londoners in the Middle Ages. Common-law rights developed over time, and American commentaries spell out what early cases imply: the mature right captured by the Amendment was not hemmed in by longstanding bans on carrying in densely populated areas. Its protections today don’t give out inside the Beltway.” Simply put, the Court stated that the Second Amendment was not restricted in its applications to carrying firearms in densely populated areas.

The District advanced another argument that I found quite curious. It argued that based on old English surety laws, carrying a firearm was excluded from the core Second Amendment protections. For those unfamiliar with surety laws, the Court provides an excellent example.
“These laws provided that if Oliver carried a pistol and Thomas said he reasonably feared that Oliver would injure him or breach the peace, Oliver had to post a bond to be used to cover any damage he might do, unless he proved he had reason to fear injury to his person or family or property.” Essentially, Oliver was posting money of his own in the form of a bond as “insurance” against him taking some adverse action. So this is social justice warrior insurance from ye olde days.
However, this argument was also rejected by the Court. Unlike the District’s characterization, surety laws did not deny a regular person the right to carry a firearm unless they showed a special need for self defense. Rather, everyone had a robust right to carry a firearm. It was only restricted in the event that someone was reasonably accused of potentially being a danger. The rationale explained in Heller squarely rejected that such civil burdens shed light on the historical right found in the Second Amendment.
The Court then turned to the decisions issued by other Circuit Courts in relation to “good cause” cases. It found that the majority have stated that burdens on carrying firearms trigger intermediate scrutiny. Remember, Intermediate scrutiny requires that the challenged law further an important government interest in a manner that is substantially related to that interest.
The Second Circuit found that the right to bear arms must count for less than the right to keep arms since the right to bear has been regulated more stringently. Likewise, the Fourth Circuit has concluded that as conduct outside of the home is examined, firearms rights have always been more limited and restrictions on such conduct is acceptable. The Third Circuit relied on the reasoning set forth by the Second and Fourth Circuits to conclude that a “good reason” law should be subject to intermediate scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit, everybody’s favorite circuit, determined in its en banc Peruta decision that because outright bans on concealed carry have been upheld, “good reason” provisions must be constitutional.
However, the Court was unimpressed with the analysis that the circuit courts chose to use. Quoting the panel decision from Peruta, the Court stated that “the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits…declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home…As a result, they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes…[They] failed to comprehend that carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.”
The 7th Circuit, the only other circuit to engage in a historical analysis through the lense of Heller, also struck down a more widely applicable carrying ban. The Court concluded that carrying beyond the home, even in populated areas, without special need, falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s coverage.
After concluding that the right to carry beyond the home was within the core of the Second Amendment, the court was left to determine what level of scrutiny to apply in examining the challenge. Grace and Wrenn argued that the ban should be struck down, without applying any level of scrutiny, and for the court to apply the same logic found in Heller. The District argued that intermediate scrutiny was the correct level of scrutiny to apply.
After a brief review of Heller, the Court stated that “[a]t a minimum, then, the Second Amendment must enable armed self-defense by commonly situated citizens: those who possess common levels of need and pose only common levels of risk.” It further found that “if the Amendment is for law-abiding citizens as a rule, then it must secure gun access at least for each typical member of that class.” The “good reason” law imposed by the District bars most people from exercising the right at all. Under the Heller analysis, a complete prohibition of Second Amendment rights are always invalid. As such, there is no need to apply any scrutiny analysis.
The Court went on to say that “By declining to apply tiers of scrutiny to a total ban on ownership, Heller I closed off the possibility that courts would erroneously find some benefits weighty enough to justify other effective bans on the right to keep common arms. We would flout this lesson of Heller I if we proceeded as if some benefits could justify laws that necessarily destroy the ordinarily situated citizen’s right to bear common arms—a right also guaranteed by the Amendment, on the most natural reading of Heller I.” The Court noted that the “good reason” law was not a total ban, but also acknowledge that the ban on ownership in Heller had limited exceptions before it was struck down as unconstitutional. As such, the same analysis should be applied in this case.
The Court summarized the analysis by stating “[a]t the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I.”
The Court continued “Because the District’s good-reason law merits invalidation under Heller I regardless of its precise benefits, we would be wasting judicial resources if we remanded for the court to develop the records in these cases.” As a result, the Court vacated the orders below and remanded the cases to the District Court with orders to enter permanent injunctions against the enforcement of the District’s “good reason” law. In short, the “good reason” requirement will no longer be part of the application process in DC.
The District could seek review of the Circuit Court’s panel decision, but it is unknown if they will pursue that review at this time. As of the filming of this episode, orders have not yet been issued for the permanent injunction against the District and the “good reason” requirement is still currently in effect until that happens. If you liked this episode or found it informative be sure to hit that like button and share it around with your friends. And if you aren’t subscribed already, you better make that happen and be sure to ring that bell so you don’t miss an episode. Also, check out my website
And as always thanks for watching!
Links for this episode:
Wrenn, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al. :$file/16-7067.pdf
About The Gun Collective
The Gun Collective is dedicated to bringing you the highest quality, fast paced gun content possible. Started in June 2015 by Jon Patton, TGC has rapidly taken off to become a go-to source for the things you need to know without a bunch of BS. Please check out to learn more and see what the hype is all about!

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Hungary has offered asylum to Christian convert Aideen Strandsson because the Swedish government plans to deport her to Iran where she could face prison or even the death penalty for apostasy.
Even worse, Strandsson states that she was told by Swedish authorities that “it’s not our problem if you decided to become a Christian.”
It is ironic that Sweden has a reputation as “the world’s humanitarian conscience and a safe haven for refugees” in the face of its rejection and mockery of Strandsson.
Swedish MEP Malin Bjork once issued an indictment against Hungary due to its tight immigration policy and rejection of EU refugee quotas. Bjork stated, demonstrating the pervasive, divisive and propagandist narrative: “When it comes to the political course, Hungary is playing a very dangerous and racist game and right-wing nationalist game and I don’t think we should adapt to it.” But now that Hungary has come out in support of Aideen Strandsson, it has used the opportunity to showcase its sensible immigration policy in the face of false accusations of racism:
Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén released a statement on Hungary’s official government website saying: “Right from the beginning, we have differentiated between economic migrants and genuine asylum-seekers.
Taking in persecuted Christians is our moral and constitutional duty all at once.
Christians, who are in most need — as they are victims of war and also victims of religious persecution — have been neglected by Western nations in their bizarre, ongoing eagerness to prioritize Muslim refugees, despite the woes they have already experienced as an outcome of their suicidal immigration policies. European nations have been afflicted with escalating crime and chaos, an Islamic State infiltration of the refugee stream, and a pervasive problem with integration.
Hungarian Deputy Minister Semjén also noted that “Christians would have a much easier time integrating into Hungarian society than Muslim migrants.”

“Hungary Offers Asylum as Sweden Prepares to Deport Christian Convert Actress to Iran”, by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, August 15, 2017:
Hungary has offered asylum to Christian convert Aideen Strandsson because the Swedish government plans to deport her to Iran where she could face prison or even the death penalty for apostasy.
In 2014, Iranian actress Aideen Strandsson came to Sweden on a work visa and applied for asylum after she had converted from Islam to Christianity. The Swedish Migration Board recently denied Strandsson asylum and began the process of deporting her but now the Hungarian government has offered to take her in instead, Nyheter Idag reports.
Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén released a statement on Hungary’s official government website saying: “Right from the beginning, we have differentiated between economic migrants and genuine asylum-seekers.”
“Taking in persecuted Christians is our moral and constitutional duty all at once,” he added.
Semjén also noted that Christians would have a much easier time integrating into Hungarian society than Muslim migrants. The move backs up previous statements from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán who has previously said that multiculturalism and mass migration are endangering the “Christian roots” of Europe.
The Hungarian government’s decision comes after they refused to take in 5,000, largely Muslim, migrants in March. Swedish Immigration and Justice Minister Morgan Johansson claimed that Hungary had a “duty” to take in the migrants who Johansson said should return to Hungary under the European Union’s Dublin Regulation.
The Hungarians have also refused to accept the EU’s migrant redistribution scheme in which the political bloc would take migrants from Italy and Greece and send them to various member states. The nation held a referendum on the issue in October last year which saw overwhelming support for the Hungarian government’s position of rejecting the redistribution.
Hungary was also one of the first countries to rebuke the prevailing pro-migrant rhetoric from politicians like German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. The Hungarians built a border fence which drastically reduced the number of arriving migrants.
The nation also placed the blame for mass migration on pro-migrant NGOs, many of which are funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros who is originally from Hungary. Prime Minister Orbán has claimed the EU is following the “migrant plan” of Soros…..
 CBN NewsWatch: August 3, 2017 
 Published on Aug 3, 2017
On CBN Newswatch, Aug. 3: Sweden shields 150 ISIS fighters, but won't protect this Christian asylum seeker; With anti-Semitism rising, Congress signals urgent need for Jewish liaison, and more.


Robert Spencer on Google changing its search results to spike criticism of Islam
 In this new video, I discuss how Google has changed its first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad,” “sharia” and “taqiyya” to display only positive explanations of Islamic concepts.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
UK jihad preacher Anjem Choudary said in February 2013:
“We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, We take the Jizya (protection money paid to Muslims by non-Muslims) which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the Kafir (non-Muslim), isn’t it? So this is normal situation. They give us the money. You work, give us the money. Allah Akbar, we take the money. Hopefully there is no one from the DSS (Department of Social Security) listening. Ah, but you see people will say you are not working. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the Kuffar (non-Muslim) So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”

“Refugee hate preacher received $620K in social benefits in Switzerland – media,” RT, August 23, 2017 (thanks to David):
A Libyan immigrant who called on Allah to “destroy” non-Muslims during his prayer in a Swiss mosque claimed $620,000 in social benefits for over a decade from a predominantly Christian state, local media report.
In his hate speech, Abu Ramadan called on Allah “to destroy the enemies of our religion,” Switzerland’s SRF broadcaster reported, citing an audio recording in its possession.
The “enemies” according to the preacher included “Jews, Christians, Hindus, Russians and the Shia [branch of Islam].”
Yet, Ramadan received some 600,000 Swiss francs ($620,000) in social benefits from the Swiss government over the last 13 years, according to research conducted by the Rundschau program of SRF and the Tages Anzeiger newspaper.
According to the newspaper, the man came to seek refuge in Switzerland in 1998 after he fled his homeland, explaining that he’d been pursued by authorities for spreading religious propaganda for the Muslim Brotherhood.
With political asylum granted and a residence permit, the 64-year-old Ramadan hardly ever worked, instead living on social payments from 2004 until 2017.
Ramadan, who can barely speak French or German according to news outlets, is said have preached in small towns of Biel and Neuchâtel, as well appeared on the Libyan Islamic channel, Tanaush TV.
In addition, research claims to have found his pictures at luxury hotels, made when he accompanied pilgrims to Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.
Through a statement by his lawyer, the preacher claimed to Tages Anzeiger that he respects other religions. “Love, tolerance and generosity are my guideline in my relations with Muslims and non-Muslims,” the statement reads.
However, according to the tape obtained by the Swiss outlets, he also preached that “a person who befriends a disbeliever is cursed until the Day of Judgment.” In fact, the man apparently never studied theology and also denied being an imam, the newspaper says….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This is why I didn’t restore the PayPal button on the sidebar when they unblocked the Jihad Watch account. Clearly this was a concerted, organized effort to choke off funding for counterjihad sites not just in the U.S., but all over the world, and many of these groups have not had their accounts restored. Moreover, the effort to choke us off continues.

“PayPal blocks account for PI donations,” translated from “PayPal sperrt Konto für PI-Spenden,” PI News, August 23, 2017 (thanks to Andrew):
Islam is terrorizing the whole world. The blood of “unbelievers” is shed in a unique trail of hatred and murder.
Whoever does not want to play this cruel game at the edge of a genocide, who says what he sees, calls the truth by name, is fought by this unholy alliance. Now this fight is really going on.
It was first the deletion teams in social networks, the controlling and systematic readjusting of the algorithms of search engines, and the merciless criminalization of simple citizens and their opinions.
Now the monetary bleeding shall begin
In an apparently worldwide concerted action, PayPal is currently systematically blocking the accounts of, above all, Islam-critical blogs and individuals. Within a few days, two of the sharpest Islamic-critical US websites received a letter from the group, and PI is now affected. The PI donation account has been blocked to PI because of its “type of activity.”
The wording is apparently the same for all, with only different addressees:
We have recently reviewed your usage of PayPal’s services, as reflected in
our records and on your website .. Due to
the nature of your activities, we have chosen to discontinue service to you
in accordance with PayPal’s User Agreement. As a result, we have placed a
permanent limitation on your account.
We ask that you please remove all references to PayPal from your website.
This includes removing PayPal as a payment option, as well as the PayPal
logo and/or shopping cart.
If you have a remaining balance, you may withdraw the money to your bank
account. Information on how to withdraw money from your PayPal account can
be found via our Help Center.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions or
need our support, please contact the PayPal Brand Risk Management
Department at
PayPal Brand Risk Management
Pamela Geller, who not only runs a website, but also repeatedly takes effective media actions against Islam (PI-NEWS reported here and here), which have up to now been protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of opinion, was also sent a letter of the same wording, as was Robert Spencer, who runs the site Jihad Watch.
Islam and the Left against People
Obviously, Islam takes more control of the world every day. There are more than ambitious helpers here: left-wing ethicists and their own people-hating groups and individuals, such as George Soros. Jihad Watch reported that, among others, ProPublica, funded by George Soros, had been called to classify and block sites like Jihad Watch as hate sites.
PI is also affected. We received the message last week. The truth is a dangerous warrior and the word her sharp sword. This weapon and others is to be beaten from our hand – obviously by all means, because this action is presumably still one of the more harmless, and more is likely to come….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 The apotheosis of the Left’s infatuation with Islamic jihad: a propaganda video 
for the Islamic State, courtesy of the British government.
“Pure poison… it’s like a Nazi recruiting film from the 1930s: CHRISTOPHER STEVENS reviews The State,” by Christopher Stevens, Daily Mail, August 20, 2017:
A really super-cool club. That’s how a young black British doctor describes Islamic State in tonight’s episode of The State, her eyes shining as she records a YouTube message urging other young women to follow her example and defect to Syria.
‘A really super-cool club.’ There’s no irony in her voice. Dr Shakira Boothe (played by Ony Uhiara) is a single mother from London who claims to be part of the first generation of Muslims building a religious paradise on earth.
This, then, is how Channel 4, a publicly owned British broadcaster, depicts Islamic State five days after a terrorist attack in Barcelona that killed more than a dozen people – during a year that has seen British children killed by a suicide bomber at a Manchester pop concert.
A four-part drama screening on consecutive nights, The State is supposedly based on real events in Syria and Iraq, seen from the viewpoint of several British recruits who fled their homes to join the jihad or Holy War. It showcases graphic footage of torture and dismemberment.
The second episode tonight includes an appallingly callous tableau of dead babies in an incubator ward, after a bomb strike on a hospital.
It is sickening. But it isn’t the gore and scattered limbs that leave a tight knot in the stomach: it is the moist-eyed adulation as The State pleads with us not just to sympathise with the British jihadis but to love them.
All the women are elegant but strong – independent heroines making a positive choice to sacrifice their freedom for the sake of their pious religious convictions. Joans of Arc, every one. All the men are sensitive and soft-spoken – driven to fight in God’s army for their love of their families. Everyone is deeply intelligent and multi-lingual, with extensive knowledge of the Koran.
And they are all ridiculously good-looking of course, with the occasional Poldark moment for the boys as they strip off their uniforms to reveal waxed chests with moulded six-packs. The soundtrack is all swelling orchestras and throbbing drums, with moments of sad Spanish guitar when a character dies.
No one will be surprised to discover that the writer and director of the State, Peter Kosminsky, is not a veteran of the civil war in Syria. He did not carry out research missions to Raqqa and Aleppo.
In fact, middle-class film-maker Kosminsky is 61 years old and Oxbridge-educated, the epitome of the London media luvvie who is desperate to demonstrate that he is less racist than anyone else at his Hampstead dinner party. He’s been the subject of a South Bank Show profile by Melvyn Bragg. You get the picture.
The dialogue of The State gives him away at every moment. It’s Dad-speak, a middle-aged man’s failed effort to sound ‘down with the kids’, which parrots comical slang last used in the 1970s by the Bay City Rollers – words such as ‘super-cool’.
In tonight’s opening scene, one fighter waves his AK47 and shouts: ‘This is better than flipping burgers!’ It’s meant to be a victory shout – but instead, the line is fake, patronising and, in its assumption that well-educated British Asians like him are destined to work at McDonald’s, dismissively racist.
Kosminsky’s dead ear for dialogue is matched by his inability to smell out lies. Because all the scenes are based on second-hand research, they mirror the propaganda videos that cascade on to the internet, showing life under Sharia law. Much of the series consists of the director’s attempts to capture the camera angles common in phone videos of battlefields and marketplaces.
It’s baffling that a man who knows how the television world works – he won Emmys and Baftas for his adaptation of Wolf Hall, after all – seems blind to the crass manipulation of Islamic State’s official videos. Kosminsky believes that the choreographed beheadings and the carefully curated aftermath of bombings are true and accurate depictions of ISIS life.
For fear of imposing his own opinions on viewers (good liberals never do that) he offers no comment on the medieval morality of Islamic State. Racism is endemic: the leading characters soon learn to sneer openly at the pathetic white fighters, who are mostly fat, tearful, closet homosexuals.
All of the characters have left their homes without saying goodbye to their parents, though Kosminsky is at pains to point out that this doesn’t mean they are ungrateful or unloving – it’s just that they didn’t dare risk alerting the forces of government oppression.
The men practise dismantling their assault rifles with their eyes shut, and learn the basics of misogyny: ‘A woman in this life is defective!’
And when the bomb strikes that baby ward, there is no hint that any blame lies with the ISIS cowards using the hospital as their shield. If anything, the fault is with the unseen hand, presumably American, that fired the missile. The only explanation for the characters’ betrayal of Britain is summed up in one line: ‘I ain’t never going back to that kuffar dump, bruv.’ Kuffar, as the constant scroll of Arabic dictionary definitions tells us, means dirty, foreign and unholy….
Kosminsky cannot be incapable of understanding how most viewers will regard his perverted vision of ISIS. But he only cares about the opinions of his peers in a deluded bubble. Any decent human being, anyone who has felt despair and heartbreak at the terrorist attacks sponsored by Islamic State, will feel nothing but revulsion for his characters. They are traitors to their families and friends. Society has provided so much entertainment and education to enrich their lives, and they are turning all of it to the most evil uses.
The State is no sort of truthful drama, as it claims to be. This is a recruitment video to rival Nazi propaganda of the Thirties calling young men to join the Brownshirts….
 Trailer: "The State"

 CHRISTOPHER STEVENS reviews Channel 4's 
The State 
 Published on Aug 20, 2017
The State-Channel 4 last night "A really super-cool club. That’s how a young black British doctor describes Islamic State in tonight’s episode of The State, her eyes shining as she records a YouTube message urging other young women to follow her example and defect to Syria."
 The State: National Geographic 
 Published on Aug 6, 2017
The State takes a bold, unflinching approach to telling the fact-inspired stories of young ISIS recruits and offers an authentic and nuanced look inside one of the most serious global threats we face today. After a year of extensive research and interviews, Golden Globe and BAFTA awards-winning writer and director Peter Kosminsky sheds light on an unknown and unimaginable world. The two night event series premieres Monday, Sept. 18 and Tuesday, Sept. 19 on National Geographic.
 Channel 4 defends isis drama the state after criticism