GOP Lawmaker Sends Letter to Corrupt Media. Warns of Consequences for Extreme Anti-Trump Bias

Rep. Cramer sent the letter to:

Here is a transcript of the letter:

Is he /ourguy/?

The waves come crashing down on (((them))).

...

They used to laugh about it. They thought it was a joke. Today, these Jews see the gravity of the situation.

So is Trump starting to give Republicans their fucking balls back?

Or in many cases forcing them to grow them for the first time.

When scavengers smell death, they begin to feed. They know which way the winds blow, and now seek to cement themselves. "Mr President, I was always on your side, I came down on the media before you were even elected! Please don't stump me! Appoint me to your cabinet!"

That was my first assessment too, but it looks like this guy has only been in office since 2013, so he might deserve the benefit of the doubt. Either way Trump is going to blow the door off the election and all the cucks will fall in line regardless.

I'm not in the forgiving mood, and I'm kinda on the side of "drain the swamp and everyone that did nothing about it" camp; but before Trump, riding out with your true convictions was political suicide. Acting in such a way would effect no change and would serve only to end your career.

Trump just handed out the license.

...

Indeed, Hitler.

OY VEY this list is anti-semitic

I didnt know (((Jeff Zucker))) got replaced.

Gr8 image.
I've been inna woods for a few months.. Is it an oc?

The only people who watch OTA English TV are nogs

I'm more upset over the Accessory to treason the MSM has been apart of.

You can go to jail for accidentally helping a murder.

The MSM has the purposely assiting the reason.

Ya I'm pissed off over this extreme bias, but what makes me want to go nuclear is how the MSM is blatantly covering up the treason of the Clintons,and Obama.

Very good, and I wish it had been done earlier.

inb4 50 women appear from nowhere to publicly accuse him of sexual assault

……… I just realise now how my image makes more sense than I previously thought..
And those dubs don't lie either

HAVE IT SO THAT NETWORKS MUST REGULARLY DISCLOSE THE NET CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THEIR CORPORATION AND STAFF MEMBERS, TO EACH CANDIDATE BEING REPORTED ON

IN ADDITION THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT OF ADVERTISING REVENUE THEIR NETWORK HAS RAISED FROM EACH CANDIDATE

THIS INFORMATION MUST BE VERBALLY PROFFERED EVERY HALF-HOUR OR ELSE THE NETWORK FACES FINES & SANCTIONS

Anything that makes members of the Lügenpresse sleep less soundly at night is good by me.

Good job, Rep. Cramer.

Trump did this. Fucking good.

So glad I early voted for him already

What's the fairness doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

I would love to see the fairness doctrine reimplemented just to put these bastards at a disadvantage. The doctrine would probably also apply to their internet publications in this day and age, while some independent blogger or small-time podcast network like TRS would be more or less free to continue doing as they please. If worst comes to worst, the blogs and podcasts can move to the Tor network or some other anonymizing network to evade the FCC. Haha, big media can get fucked. I hope Trump reinstates the doctrine.

That's why he won out in the primaries. He didn't have a political history to uphold and had no political career to risk.

If he'd been unsuccessful unlikely, considering his message and the timing of it all, his reputation would have been damaged in a superficial way and he could have gone back to his real estate and other assorted business dealings.

No career politician could have done this. It's still incredibly dangerous for one to do it, even with Trump leading the charge. The best possible outcome would be garnering the support of the Don's voters and the politician's original voting bloc realizing that this is the best possible move.

The more likely outcome is that the neoconservatives who voted for them will abandon them and what few Trump supporters that ever hear the politician's story will try to replace the spineless neocons.

Getting information out is the key. Circumventing the MSM's monopoly on the public's attention, or tricking them into serving as your mouthpiece, is how victory is achieved.

Why did they remove it ? It's a good law.

Nah, just yank the spectrum. Nobody watches that shit any more. It will be MUCH better used for wireless internet or, well, anything else, really.

In layman's term, they get federal funding? What's the official reasoning for this? And how many channels get this, based on what merit?

You answered your own question

Exactly, its a (((LITTLE FUCKING LATE))) don't you think Crammer?

The Republicans did away with it ostensibly because it "interfered with the market."

Because Democrats got a hold of it.

Republicans obey the law in office and don't do good shit like silence their opponents. Democrats do.

Talk radio only exists because the fairness doctrine was revoked. If it was put back in place, stations carrying conservative radio hosts would have to give equal time to liberal ones.

But remember, it NEVER gets applied to liberal media. PBS for example is ultra left wing and 100% federally funded. But nobody can even affect its programming to make it less liberal.

So broadcast media would claim it was unbiased while they shilled for Demcorats, and then force Holla Forums to merge with Holla Forums or some shit like that.

I'm no lawfag, but that sounds like something that can very easily get corrupted. Good intentions I will admit, but think about what would happen if we still had that law and if Obama appointed (or at least influenced the selection of) the people on the commission. Imagine he put in someone like Lynch in there. Do you really think the commission's view of what would be "honest, equitable and balanced" be any of those things? I would assume this would be worse with all the back-room dealing and corruption that Wikileaks has been revealing the last few weeks too.

We would need to hold public elections for the review board.

But then what would happen during those time when we selected the wrong review board people? They could cause irreversible damage, therefore, the free market should exist where no content can be censored.

But what if, we tell the media that they cannot communicate with each other? That would be interesting, no collusion.

But then what would happen during those time when the free market does not operate due to conspiracy, collusion and propagandism by the media elites?

Both alternatives can have negative consequences. The only question is which alternative has the lowest probability of negative consequences and the highest probability of positive consequences,

I would wager that the democratic solution would be better because you can at least vote out the corrupt. You cannot vote out a corrupt free market if they have a monopoly, which is what the media has due to barriers of entry essentially, It is monopolised by one class, the Globalist class, because only they can surmount those barriers of entry due to their wealth.

If one is to argue that the free market is the best way to determine this then one should also be against democratic voting for determination of the solution to political problems.

t. Patriotard

The broadcast frequencies for radio and TV are limited, and the Feds nationalized them, each station licenses their frequency from the gov and is therefore subject to FCC regulations.

Here's hoping this guy is making a play to eventually primary Denny Hastert's boy Sasse out of the Senate.

It's true, though.