SC Action Aleart, Lindsey Graham is at it again!

[Red Hat]

He's at it again!

Sen. Graham is Sponsoring a Bill That Will Result in a National Anti-gun Database

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Gun Owners of America

Friday, May 15, 2009

Do you know what your supposedly "Republican" senator is doing right now?

Well, it turns out that Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is also leading the "hit parade" on behalf of legislation which would expand the scope of government in a way unprecedented in human history
-- and which would place your most private medical data into an anti-gun database.

Hard to believe?

But there he is: Sen. Graham is right up there with certifiable liberals like left wing Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden and left wing Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow.

The bill is S. 391, and it is being pushed by some Republicans as an alternative to the Health Care Gun Ban that we've been warning you about.

S. 391 does a hodgepodge of things, but by far the most important one is to "solve" the problem of 48 million uninsured by taking away the right of Americans not to purchase government-approved insurance.

If you are uninsured, you would have to buy health insurance, whether you can afford it or not. If your employer is not unionized, he would have to retool your employer-provided health insurance policy to comply with government requirements.

If your employer cannot afford government-approved insurance with all of the politically correct bells and whistles, too bad. His only legal alternative is to fire you.

If you cannot afford government-approved insurance, too bad.

If you have to lose your home -- or your small business -- or your kids' college fund -- in order to pay for government-approved insurance, too bad.

And like the Massachusetts system on which it is modeled, the federally mandated insurance would inexorably revolve around a federal database of medical information that you could not opt out of.

So, remember when your kid's pediatrician asked him about your gun collection? Or when you grandfather was diagnosed with a mental disability which could disqualify him from owning a gun?

All of that will be in the federal database, which could be searched by virtually anyone in the Department of Health and Human Services -- and by BATF, by simple request.

And, although section 103 of S. 391 purports to allow you to keep the coverage you have, all employer-provided insurance which you wish to keep has to be rewritten to contain all the government-required mandates -- or you're not allowed to keep it.

ACTION: Contact Senator Graham and urge him to remove his cosponsorship from S. 391. Please use his webform at .: United States Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina :: Contact :.
to do so (you can copy and paste the following text or type your own).


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator Graham:

In connection with S. 391 -- the Wyden-Stabenow individual insurance mandate -- apparently some people are under the delusional notion that this bill is something other than the biggest government interference in the private sector in American history.

This crazy bill would put government bureaucrats in the position of dictating the contents of virtually every insurance policy in the country -- with the sole conspicuous exception of unionized industries with collective bargaining agreements.

This bill would result in all kinds of personal information being put into a medical database. Across the nation, there have been reports that pediatricians are asking kids about their parents' gun collection.
And military veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD have already been disqualified from owning guns.

All of this information will be in the federal database, which could be searched by virtually anyone in the Department of Health and Human Services -- and by the FBI and the BATFE, by simple request.

Please do not saddle America with a massive open-ended bill like S. 391.

In short, please remove your cosponsorship from S. 391.

Sincerely,


****************************

[Germanicus]

I have only one word for this: gay.

[R&M]

Originally Posted by Germanicus

I have only one word for this: gay.

Agreed

What an embarrassment. You should see the difference in replies to my e-mails between DeMint and Graham.
Same party, same state, oh well I tried in the last primary.