moonbattery logo

Feb 01 2013

Still Waiting for NBC Apology for Doctored Video of Grieving Sandy Hook Father

Progressives have been progressing quickly. Less than a year ago, after it got caught doctoring a 911 recording in a ham-fisted attempt to portray George Zimmerman as a “racist” for defending his life, NBC at least apologized and offered up a scapegoat. Not this time:

A video doctored by MSNBC featuring the grieving father of one of the children who died in the Sandy Hook tragedy … has set the Internet aflame this week. The video, which first aired on the Monday, January 28 broadcast of the liberal network’s “Martin Bashir” show … showed Newtown, Conn. father Neil Heslin’s testimony about guns speaking at a legislative hearing. Bashir then claimed Heslin was heckled by a gun supporter at the hearing. “A father’s grief, interrupted by the cries of a heckler,” Bashir declared. …

The video cut out the part of Heslin’s testimony where he posed a question to the crowd. Hearing no response, Heslin then appeared to act like no one was able to challenge his argument, which is why some present did so.

Days have gone by. As far as I know there has been no formal acknowledgment by NBC of its dishonesty, although it has been shamed into airing the undoctored version.

The only thing more unconscionable than the establishment media’s willingness to lie is its eagerness to exploit this man’s grief to attack our constitutional liberties:

On a tip from Dr. 9.

17 Responses to “Still Waiting for NBC Apology for Doctored Video of Grieving Sandy Hook Father”

  1. gemalo says:

    Along with all the other useless crap that comes out of D.C., why can’t we get the F.C.C. to bar the hiring of these poofter Brit commentators like Morgan and Bashir, who have no clue about, or regard for, our Constitution.

  2. A. Levy says:


    by Carl F. Worden
    January 15, 2013

    “There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

    The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn’t, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore, “any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.”

    The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn’t trying to kill you.

    Both of these cases are “standing, black-letter law” to this day.

    The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

    I didn’t make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did…” — Carl F. Worden

  3. StanInTexas says:

    Being Liberal means NEVER saying you are sorry!

  4. Jodie says:

    When asked for comment, NBC replied, “What difference does it make!?”

  5. StanInTexas says:

    I heard that NBC commissioned a blue-ribbon panel of outsiders to investigate this matter. Chair-person Dan Rather issued the committee’s statement of “We see nothing improper here”.

  6. Ummah Gummah says:


    The video was doctored to discredit gun owners. The overarching goal here is to take away all guns still in private hands.

    Am I surprised to find the moslem Basher in the forefront of this effort? It’s all part of the jihad. Cutting off the heads of unarmed people is a whole lot easier than doing it to those with not only the will but also the means to resist.

    Meanwhile, wonderboy is busy arming the MB with F-16s and Abrams Tanks, PAID FOR WITH MONEY TAKEN FROM US UNDER THREAT OF FORCE!

    To sum it up: He and his mooozeleeembeh minions like Basher are busy disarming America while they arm our mortal enemies.



  7. Ummah Gummah says:


    Why is everyone down on Beyonce for lip-syncing? Obama reads his BS off a teleprompter.

    I call her performance par for the course.


  8. Ummah Gummah says:


    I mean, don’t we all know that libs are fakes, phonies and frauds?


  9. wingmann says:

    These putrid progressives have no shame or bottom.

    I implore you to read up on what a sociopath is…it will REALLY help you understand who,what and how these people operate.

  10. AngryK9 says:

    I am sure Bashir offered an apology for his deception, didn’t he?

  11. Beef says:

    Can’t any lower in exploiting this tragedy? Get this, CBS is going to have the Sandy Hook chorus sing, with Jennifer Hudson, at the Super Bowl:

    Maybe they’ll have someone dressed up to represent Wayne LaPierre there to menace the children as they sing. That would be a nice, subtle touch.

  12. Jester says:

    The Leftist apparatchiks at MSNBC can doctor anything, anytime, any way to follow their political agenda.

    Here’s the 800-lb-Gorilla-in-the-Living-Room question: “Who the f*ck elected them to political office?”


  13. Flu-Bird says:

    Time to wring the peacosks lying neck

  14. Dr. 9 says:

    Haven’t you noticed? The only people who apologize are republicans and conservatives.

  15. […] the testimony of Sandy Hook father Bill Stevens wasn’t as easy to deceptively edit as Neil Heslin’s; otherwise you would see this plastered across the authoritarian media: A […]

  16. […] the testimony of Sandy Hook father Bill Stevens wasn’t as easy todeceptively edit as Neil Heslin’s; otherwise you would see this plastered across the authoritarian media: […]

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy