Bob Barr><font size=

The Two Faces of Bob Barr

Bob Barr><font size=







wpe61.jpg (3416 bytes)

Senator John Barrasso

Presented by: The Religious Freedom Coalition of the SouthEast

Senator John Barrasso

Bush and Wicca and Doreen Valiente


Bob Barr

Question:  "Separation between Church and State."  Who coined the Phrase?  Give up?  Answer:   Thomas Jefferson - one of the founding fathers of this geat Nation and a creator of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment to that same Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson, in 1802, wrote a Letter to the Dansbury Baptist Convention, referring to the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  In it he said:

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

"A senator's attention span is probably less than an average juror's, so we'll need to simplify, simplify, simplify." -A statement made by Barr in regards to the Senate preparation for the Clinton impeachment trial.




Bob Barr has always supported a Conservative Christian extremist position especially when it comes to Church and State issues.  It is apparent from the data collected, that the first amendment has been in danger from his past and future actions.

Upon calling his office we find that all religions except ultra conservative christianity, "..aren't "Real" religions."  What is a real religion, Mr. Barr?  What you have been practicing?  Read the following and remember: "By their Works may they be known."

(Remember it is best to investigate on your own when looking at allegations about anyone.    Don't believe us, think for yourself and investigate for yourself!  And remember, the Religious Freedom and First Amendment Coalitions do not represent any political party nor do we recommend any political candidate, nor are we involving ourselves in the political process. 

Click HERE to see if John McCain will be the next president!!!

Bob Barr Might Run for President in 2012

May 12, 2008  --  Former Rep. Bob Barr, famous in part for having played a key role in former President Bill Clinton's impeachment, has officially announced his plans to run for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.

Barr left the Republican Party in 2006.  In an interview last year, he said he'd made that decision in part because of his differences with the Bush administration on civil liberties.  The Libertarian Party, Barr said, "is the only [party] that is true to my core philosophy of working to minimize government power and maximize individual liberty."

Barr isn't guaranteed the nomination, which will be voted on at a party convention later this month. According to the convention Web site, 14 other candidates -- including former Sen. Mike Gravel, who has also been running for the Democratic nomination -- will be vying for the nod.

The party says it has ballot access in 28 states already, and Barr would obviously bring a little more name recognition to it.  Most observers have seen a potential Barr run as bad news for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.   In 2004, the Libertarian candidate finished fourth, with less than 1 percent of the vote.

In other Libertarian-related news, supporters of Rep. Ron Paul's presidential campaign are still at it.  The Los Angeles Times' Top of the Ticket blog reports that "largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September."

Bob Barr has a Change of Heart

Former Clinton inquisitor Bob Barr explains why he left the Republican Party and why he shouldn't have voted for the Patriot Act. 

Excerpts from an article by Alex Koppelman,  April 4, 2007


Reuters/Shaun Heasley

Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., at a press conference in Washington on March 22, 2005.

During the Clinton administration, Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia was one of the most visible Republicans in America. In 1998, the arch-conservative was a House manager of President Clinton's impeachment trial. But since leaving Congress in 2003, Barr has become a vocal critic of the constitutionally questionable policies of Clinton's Republican successor, George W. Bush. In 2004, he declined to support Bush's reelection, and in late 2006 he formally left the GOP to take a leadership position in the Libertarian Party. Two weeks ago, Barr and several other conservative heavyweights announced the founding of the American Freedom Agenda, a group opposed to what it sees as assaults on civil liberties in post-9/11 America. And in another break with his past, last week Barr, an erstwhile anti-drug warrior who once led a congressional effort to block medical marijuana use in the District of Columbia, announced that he is joining the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project as a lobbyist.

Salon spoke with Barr about his views on civil liberties, the American Freedom Agenda and his reasons for abandoning his old party.  He was reached at an Atlanta phone number that ends, like all of the office numbers Barr maintains, in the digits 1-7-7-6.

You recently announced the creation of the American Freedom Agenda. Can you tell me a little bit about that and what you're doing there?

This is part of a multifaceted effort to bring attention to the abuses and losses of our fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed liberties since 9/11. This particular effort is spearheaded by [former Reagan administration official] Bruce Fein and focuses on 10 specific issues related to our fundamental civil liberties that Bruce, myself, [American Conservative Union chairman] Dave Keene, [conservative direct-mail pioneer] Richard Viguerie and hopefully a number of others feel are extremely important and go to the core of constitutional liberties in this country. So we're going to focus on those efforts to educate the public, drive home the message to appropriate members in the House and the Senate as to the importance of these constitutional liberties and work to ensure legislation, where appropriate, to address them.

You also recently announced that you were leaving the Republican Party and joining the Libertarian Party. What was your reason for doing that?

Several-fold. One, that the Libertarian Party, among all of the parties out there, is the only one that is true to my core philosophy of working to minimize government power and maximize individual liberty. None of the other parties, and especially the Republican Party any longer, is at all committed to that philosophy. And secondly, my great concern, manifested especially since 9/11, is the assaults on our fundamental civil liberties by this administration. [That's] personified, for example, in the disregard for the rule of law as exhibited by the warrantless NSA [National Security Agency] electronic surveillance in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More recently, [there were] documented abuses at the FBI in carrying out certain of the expanded powers granted in the Patriot Act, namely, national security letters. And in January of this year, the testimony by the attorney general that this administration does not believe that the fundamental right to a writ of habeas corpus is an important, fundamental, constitutional guarantee. So what we have is a party, the Republican Party, to which I was very proud to belong for many, many years, no longer being committed to a core conservative philosophy. The Libertarian Party is so committed, and I felt that at the time that it was necessary to make a change because of the seriousness of the assaults on our civil liberties.

Why not the Democratic Party?

The Democratic Party, while much better than the Republican Party on these particular issues, in other areas does not share my commitment to smaller government, maximized individual power and minimized government power. For example, in many social programs, [Democrats] use the power of taxation to take money from individuals and use [it] for expanded government programs of dubious value and dubious constitutional basis.

How viable a force is the Libertarian Party?

Certainly it is not in the same league with the Republican or Democrat Party; no other third party is. Our country, for 150 years or so, has been very much in sync with a two-party system, and the entire political and electoral process is centered around that. So the real goal for the Libertarian Party in my view -- I certainly don't speak for it -- needs to be to take that core philosophy and do a top-notch job of explaining it to the American people, and to impress on the American people the value of having a third party that is a true, workable alternative. [It needs to] work to identify, recruit and support good candidates for elective office at all levels, to work to open up the political and electoral process in this country so there are ways for a third party to truly become a player in that process and to articulate its philosophy in ways that appeal to and are relevant to the average voter, the average family out there. And certainly the libertarian philosophy of reduced regulatory burden, reduced tax burden, much smaller government and so forth, I think, will resonate very well with the American people.

What do your old Republican colleagues and supporters think of your move?

I have no idea. When I talk with individual members and political colleagues, they all express understanding of why I made the move. Pretty much everybody is frustrated on the Republican side -- at least [everybody] that I've worked with -- with the current stance of the party, which is clearly not in the direction of smaller government but in the direction of much larger government, a much more activist, powerful federal government. [There's] a lot of dissatisfaction among Republicans, so really I don't think it came as a shock or a surprise to anybody that knows me and the issues that I've worked on over the years to see that I made that change.

I was just reading a Dana Milbank column from early 2006 about your appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference [the American Conservative Union's annual convention in Washington], and it seemed as if you didn't get a very warm reaction when you were opposing some of the administration's policies. I've talked with some other conservatives about this -- do you think that the conservative movement has become tied to the president and his policies?

I think the problem is that many conservatives have allowed themselves, in recent years, to view the conservative movement as not simply consistent with, but completely incorporated into, the Republican Party. That has caused, I think, significant problems and sort of warped the views of many conservatives -- who have sort of allowed allegiance to a party, that is, the Republican Party, or an administration, that is, the George W. Bush administration, to trump what they know in their heart of hearts is a much better approach, and that is a true conservative approach.

So the conservative movement in recent years has suffered from allowing itself to become captured by the Republican Party, and it has lost, in many respects, its independence, the power that comes from being a true independent, principled movement, the conservative movement. These issues have become very complex because of that. So, for example, when you go to speak to a group of conservatives and you are critical of the way the current administration has been denigrating civil liberties and individual freedom, many conservatives rally to the defense of the administration because they support the administration.

But I think that's changing, and you can see that, for example, just in microcosm in the group that Bruce Fein has pulled together for the AFA. David Keene, a very well-respected, longtime leader of the conservative movement, and Richard Viguerie, likewise a longtime expert on grass-roots movement on the conservative side, joining with Bruce and me to say, "Look, there are some issues here that are much more important than a political party or a particular administration and true conservatives need to band together and work for these civil liberties." So I think it really means a lot when you have leaders like that who come out and highlight what we're doing here.

We've been talking about civil liberties since 9/11. You voted for the Patriot Act -- what role did that play in any loss of civil liberties, and what do you think of that vote now?

It's a vote that I would not cast now, knowing how the powers in the act have been abused, and [seeing] how vast not just the Patriot Act powers but other powers that the administration has simply taken for itself or that Congress has granted have increased dramatically the power of the federal government.  These are of great concern to me, and that's why I worked very strenuously in '05 and '06 to try to have the Patriot Act amended and some of its provisions that were up for renewal rescinded.  That's why I've worked so very hard, also over the last few years, to bring attention to the real problems, where you have unfettered power for an administration, any administration, such as was granted in the Patriot Act.    These are very serious problems, and even though there were some worthwhile provisions in the Patriot Act, which is why I voted for it back in '01, looking back on it now and seeing how it has been used and abused since then makes very clear in my mind that that act should not have been passed in the form that it was.

You were one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial -- looking back now, what do you think of that period?

Of course, it was a different administration, different issues.  The issues in the impeachment related to the sanctity of our judicial system, obstruction of justice and perjury by a very high government official, which I think certainly, even today, are very worthwhile and important to uphold: the principle that no individual is above the law regardless of their position, that when a person takes an oath in open court to tell the truth they do so, and that if they demonstrably have not done so they should pay a price for that, and the public should know about it.  So I think the issues that we addressed in the impeachment were very, very important.

Speaking of that, Sen. Chuck Hagel [R-Neb.] recently speculated aloud about impeaching President Bush. Given your own experience, what do you think of impeachment when it comes to this president?

Some of the issues that we've looked at, and that have come to the public's attention in recent years, I think are extremely serious and ought to be inquired into by the Congress.  On the issue of warrantless electronic surveillance, Congress still does not have a full and accurate view of what has gone on and what continues to go on with regard to what seems to me to be a clear violation of the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the administration.  That's just one small area that I think Congress definitely needs to look into.  Where they take it from there depends on what they find out, but it's certainly something that needs to be looked at.

Bob Barr's Troubles

This article summarizes information obtained from several sources including Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Fulton County Daily Report, Mother Jones and other sources about former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr of the 7th Congressional District.  This information is also in the public record. 


Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, winner of the 1999 Equine Posterior Achievement Award, has a consistent record of attacking the U.S. Constitution and American values. Barr's record sets a new standard for hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness in public life.  This self-righteous Georgia congressman considers himself a moral crusader, but he has more than his share of petty corruption scandals from his past.  First elected in 1994, highlights of Rep. Barr's political career include:

  • Supporting a constitutional amendment to undermine separation of church and state. "Congress has the opportunity to send enemies of religious freedom a clear message that their attempts to erase religious belief from America's culture by cleverly manipulating the judicial system will not be tolerated," Barr said.
  • Becoming the first member of Congress to introduce an "inquiry of impeachment," long before the public had heard of Monica Lewinsky.  
  • Giving a keynote speech at a gathering of the racist and anti-immigrant Council of Conservative Citizens, a direct descendant of the White Citizens Councils set up across the South in the 1950s to defend segregation.
  • Calling hate crimes legislation to protect the rights of gays and lesbians, women and disabled Americans "a backdoor way to obtain protected status for sexual orientation and sexual deviancy."
  • Sponsoring the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. Despite the fact that he was married three times, sued by his second wife, and, according to published reports, was once seen at a fundraising event licking whipped cream off of the chests of two women, Barr explained his sponsorship of DOMA this way: "The flames of hedonism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit." 
  • Earning consistent 100 percent ratings from the Christian Coalition.
  • Sponsoring an amendment ­ passed by Congress ­ that barred the Washington D.C. Board of Elections from tallying the votes on a referendum to legalize the use of marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, AIDS or glaucoma. Officials estimate it would have cost only $1.64 to count the votes.
  • Campaigning on a pledge to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts.
  • Voting to cut funding for Head Start, Medicare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and student loans.

Bob Barr was commonly seen as a gun-toting, NRA champion, anti-gay bigot.  Barr is definitely all of these, and more. He was named "Gun Rights Legislator of the Year" by the Gun Rights Organization, a far right wing organization.  While pretending to be a champion of "traditional" marriage, Barr remarried three times and also licked whipped cream off of a beauty pageant’s breasts.  Hardly a man of "traditional" marriage standards.  In addition, during the Judiciary Committee hearings (which he serves on) it was revealed that Barr has given speeches to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist organization.


Bob was one of several legislators to be "Flynted".  He followed Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Speaker-never-to-be Robert Livingston, both of whom, according to the Irish Times (a daily newspaper in Ireland; it's status is equivalent to the New York Times in Ireland), were outed by Flynt (Sidenote: According to the Dec. 21 Irish Times, Gingrich resigned because Flynt was "negotiating with several parties, people described as having an association with a prostitution ring, for a series of credit card receipts that showed Mr. Gingrich paying for the services".  Livingston resigned because Flynt was about to reveal a taped conversation where "Mr. Livingston asks the woman a question to the effect, can't I be the victim next time" (indicating a dominant-submissive affair with a woman who was not his wife).

Next, a little background.   Bob Barr worked for the CIA in the 70's and was appointed as a US Attorney in drug enforcement by Ronald Reagan in 1986.  Then with a little help from his friends in the NRA (on whose board of directors he serves), the Christian Coalition, the National Right to Life Committee, Bob Dornan and Pat Buchanan, Barr became one of Newt's Freshman (winning with the amazing majority vote of 52%).  In his first year he was awarded Freshman of the Year by The American Conservative Union; and the Friend of the Family award from the Christian Coalition.  Do we see a connection to the religious right?  As you read the profiles about these people who we have called enemies of Religious Freedom, you will indeed see the connection.  It is painfully obvious that Bob Barr is a racist who is also a hypocrite.

Although elected as being a "Family Values" candidate, most of Barr's legislation has been far from friendly to families.  Bobby was one of the strongest voices to eliminate public broadcasting, which provides us great children's programs like "Sesame Street".   He has also voted to completely dismantle the Department of Education, repeal the Motor Voter Law (the way that most of the middle class and minorities use to register to vote) and co-sponsored amendments to repeal the Establishment and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Barr was the sponsor of the Marriage Defense Act of 1996 (Which didn't defend Marriage).

According to an affidavit filed by Barr's second wife Gail Barr, Bob Barr paid for and did not object to her having an abortion in 1983. This is rather amusing for two reasons: first of all, Barr was a member of the pro-life caucus. The fact that Barr did not discourage her from having an abortion is rather interesting in light of his strong pro-life stance. Second of all, Barr, in divorce court in 1986, stated that he did object to the abortion. Gail Barr's affidavit, if true, proves that he committed perjury in divorce court. Barr, however, considered Clinton's "sin" of lying about where and when he touched Ms. Lewinsky to be an impeachable offense. He, himself, did not resign as he claims all the charges against him were false.

Bob has been divorced twice, failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and while married to his third wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of a few chesty strippers at his inaugural party.. this guy is deciding that a whole segment of the population is less moral than him and is unfit to claim marriage benefits?

Along with ex-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Barr hawked a bill to allow Congress to impeach federal judges for decisions from the bench they just plain don't like, i.e., 'liberal' decisions. They wanted to impeach one judge in particular: the former black civil rights attorney, Judge Henderson, who put a hold on California's Proposition 209 because he believed it violated the equal protection guarantees under the Constitution by preventing women and minorities from seeking government redress for discrimination.  Barr's grounds for this impeachment depends on the "high crimes and misdemeanors," clause in Article II, Section 4.  Apparently, to Barr's mind, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "anything that I or my fascist backers in the NRA don't like:. Never mind the appeal process! Let's just impeach them!

Is Bob Barr a Truthful Person?

The Atlanta-based Fulton County Daily Report had a great deal to say about Congressman Bob Barr. 

"In the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, Bob Barr repeatedly mentioned his background as a U.S. attorney.  He mentioned it to give weight to a specious legal argument in the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings when he said perjury indictments need not specify the statements alleged to be lies. As a result of his misrepresentation of the law, the perjury charge against Clinton fails to contain any specific quotation of when and where Clinton lied under oath.

"U.S. Attorney is a political appointment and, during his period as U.S. Attorney, Bob Barr never made an opening statement or a closing argument as a prosecutor. He never examined a witness, offered an objection or defended against one.

"Whatever trial experience Barr may have would have come not as a prosecutor but as a criminal-defense lawyer. He represented accused criminals for more than a dozen years, both before and after his stint as U.S. attorney (a fact not included in press releases or on his official online biography).  One might infer from his remark that Barr was battling powerful wrongdoers who wanted to operate in the shadows, and probably he was.  But among those disgruntled with his penchant for publicity were people who were on his side of the law.  Some of his Assistant US Attorneys were so fearful that leaks would jeopardize their cases that they stopped telling Barr sensitive information.  And the local heads of law enforcement agencies complained to Washington about Barr, sparking two internal Department of Justice investigations, the results of which were never disclosed.

"The question of whether Barr ever actually leaked grand jury information was a topic of some debate, and of his consistent denials.   What is clear is that early disclosure of sensitive information meant that people and corporations were widely reported to be under investigation for crimes for which they were never indicted.

"In 1989, as U.S. District Court Judge William C. O'Kelley chewed him out for appearing on every possible network news and interview show discussing his then-big case."

When photographs of Bob Barr, a Republican who represented Georgia's 7th Congressional District since 1994, showed him licking whipped cream off the breast of a stripper, Mr. Barr explained that his act had been performed for a charitable cause!   Hmmmmmm.

Given the above information, we have several concerns we would like to address:

Hypocrisy: Traditional Marriages

"The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit," so says Bob Barr. This was said in regards to the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill which he sponsored that would have defined marriage as the life-long union between a man and a woman (and thus not allowing homosexuals to be married to each other). From statements such as these, one would imagine that Bob Barr would not only be a strong proponent of "traditional" marriages but would also be relatively pure of the flames of hedonism. This sort of morality was not manifested when he, in 1992, decided to enliven a Leukemia Society luncheon by licking whipped cream off the breasts of two well-endowed women, one a nurse and the other a credit card executive. (I've been looking for pictures of this for a while...if anyone has these/knows where I can get them, please email me). His table evidently donated $200 to the society to enable him to do this. While this sort of behavior is a pretty good indication that Barr is, indeed, a heterosexual, it does little to show how Barr can be a preacher against the flames of hedonism and immorality. It also seems to define what sort of marriage Barr defines as where the woman is subservient to the man (as behavior like this would seem to indicate a good deal of sexism on Barr's part).

In addition to the problem of matching Barr with morality, there's also a bit of a problem matching Barr with the "traditional marriages" he loves to promote. Barr and others claim that homosexual marriage is a threat to "traditional" heterosexual marriages like his own. Problem is....long before the gay rights movement gained momentum, Barr was on his third marriage. Barr evidently has some sort of personality trait that wrecks havoc with his marriages....which is hardly the fault of the homosexual population of the United States. Not only has Barr had some marital problems of his own, but he also seems to have had problems being able to care for his children born from his past marriages. Barr was taken to court in order by his ex-wife in order to increase child support payments by $600 a month. Seeing as how Barr makes $133,600 a year as a legislator, it isn't too difficult for him to pay $2,100 a month for three of his children. He has also been sued by another former wife for refusing to pay medical bills.


From depositions, Mr. Barr cannot deny the fact that he failed to tell the truth about adulterous sex while under oath in a 1986 deposition.

Bob Barr is a "family-values" proponent who in 1985 dumped his second wife, Gail Barr, and their two young sons­then ages five-and-a-half and four­just in time for Thanksgiving. 

In 1978, Gail Barr had given up her well-paying position at the Central Intelligence Agency to take a lesser-paying job and move to Georgia with Barr, where her husband launched his political career.  In 1984, while Barr was running for state representative against an incumbent, Gail had been diagnosed with breast cancer.  She asked her husband to stop campaigning after her surgery and subsequent chemotherapy treatments.  Despite marriage vows that committed him "to love and to hold in sickness and in health," Barr refused to abandon his shot at Georgia's statehouse.

"He told me that the campaign would take my mind off my health problems," states the former Mrs. Barr in a sworn affidavit. "He never went to the chemotherapy treatments with me.  He never tried to understand what I was going through.  He was not there for me when I needed him."

Instead of receiving emotional support from her husband, Gail helped Barr with his campaign.  She and her young sons stuffed mailboxes, rode in parades and took part in other campaign functions.  At the polls challenger Barr was defeated.

Then, two weeks before Thanksgiving, Gail stood in the garage and heard her husband announce that he did not love her anymore.  She asked him to stay through the holiday weekend for the sake of the boys, but Barr refused.  He immediately moved into the same apartment complex where Jeri Dobbin, his current wife, lived.

Bob Barr's views on marriage are unequivocal: "This is America.  This is the land that has as its most basic building block a marriage between a man and a woman." Bob Barr, who is on record as believing that our country's elected officials should lead by example, has such high regard for matrimony that he has embarked upon that life-long commitment three times.

In a barb that might be aimed at home-wrecking adulterers such as Henry Hyde, Barr once declared: "We must protect marriage and the traditional family unit from assault by those who would destroy its basic foundations."

During July 12, 1996, arguments for his Defense of Marriage Act, Congressman Barr waxed eloquent upon the House floor: "The very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned.  The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit."

Barr has the seared squint of a man who has watched as the flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism and the flames of self-centered morality licked his very foundation. The burning man in this case was a man in a hurry, and Bob Barr would marry Jeri Dobbin just one month after his divorce from Gail was finalized.

"Looking back," continues Gail in her sworn statement to Larry Flynt, "it is evident to me that Bob was having an affair with Jeri before Bob and I were divorced.  During the summer of 1985 we would receive telephone calls at home, but when I answered, the person would hang up.  Bob was coming home later and later in the evening.  Sometimes he wouldn't get home until the early hours of the morning.

"A change took place in Bob.  He had always worn glasses, but he switched to contact lenses.  He started wearing custom suits.  He took a renewed interest in his appearance."

In September 1985, Gail Barr was helping out as a secretary in her husband's law office. As part of her duties, Barr would have Gail call to make luncheon arrangements with Jeri, the woman he later married.  "Obviously, at the time, I did not realize Bob was having a romantic relationship with this woman," says Gail.

In May 1986, Bob Barr was given an opportunity to deny that he had committed adultery in his second marriage, but was unable to take advantage of this chance to clear himself.  An investigation into Congressional misbehavior unearthed a pair of depositions from the Barrs' divorce proceedings.  Bob Barr and his current wife, Jeri, both refuse to answer accusations that they had been engaged in an adulterous affair. Why not simply deny the charges? Because to lie in a deposition is to commit perjury.

These depositions might never have been taken if Bob Barr had gotten his way.   After Barr left his family, he lobbied Gail to allow him to draw up their divorce papers himself. He pressured her to immediately sell the house and split the proceeds.   In April 1986, Gail Barr hired her own attorney to protect her interests and those of her sons.

The documents that Larry Flynt presented to the national media confront Bob Barr with clear and compelling evidence that the Congressman condoned an abortion, committed adultery and failed to tell the truth under oath.  Barr's official response contained no denials of these direct charges.

"I am deeply saddened that Larry Flynt's money has been used to drive a wedge between the mother and father of two wonderful boys," said Barr in a released statement.  A wedge can only separate what adheres.  Bob and Gail Barr had split up long before Larry Flynt's cash arrived.

Barr's statement complained that his sons "deserve better than to become involved in the politics of personal destruction."  True to his word, Larry Flynt has never publicized the boys.  Meanwhile Barr cynically has used his sons as a smokescreen, the same toddlers that he had abandoned during Thanksgiving of 1985.   Barr has also uses the pretext of parental concern to cast aspersions on Gail Barr.   "They're [his sons] still living with my ex-wife, and that's what bothers me."

Bob Barr's credibility is far more dubious than his ex-wife's.  Where are records or documents showing Gail Barr declining to tell the truth while under oath?


Barr's public opposition to abortion is well-documented.  His voting record is consistently anti-choice­and substantiated by a "perfect score" from the Christian Coalition.  "I would do absolutely everything in my power to stop" a family member from having an abortion, brayed Barr on August 4, 1992, even if that family member had been raped.

Bob Barr, an infamous supporter of radical anti-abortion groups such as Operation Rescue, encouraged his second wife to have an abortion.  As was originally documented by Hustler Magazine , Bob Barr not only knew his wife was going to abort one of their children; he coerced her into doing it AND he paid for it.

In his private life, Barr has been less aggressive in his opposition to abortion. Gail Barr became pregnant with what would have been the couple's third child in March 1983.  At the time, she was 38 years old and concerned about possible health complications.  Her husband's law practice was slow, which meant money was tight, and yet Barr was often away from home.  "I asked Bob what we should do," remembers Gail, "whether I should have an abortion."  According to his ex-wife, Barr told Gail that the decision was entirely hers.

"This was an extremely difficult choice," Gail points out, "but Bob didn't want to help in making the decision, even though he was the father.  If Bob had said, 'No, don't have an abortion,' I never would have had it done."

In his deposition taken during the couple's divorce proceedings, Bob Barr swore under oath that he opposed that abortion.  His definition of opposed is as quibbled as President Clinton's definition of sex.  Gail recounts that Barr himself drove her to the clinic to have the abortion performed.  Later he returned to the facility to pick her up and paid for the procedure.

"Any statement he made that he expressed his opposition to the abortion is simply not true," says Gail.

As a House Manager during the President's impeachment proceedings, Barr got to grandstand on the subject of perjury.  "If there's any evidence that some member of Congress has committed perjury in a deposition, absolutely that's relevant,"   Barr said in a January 1999 interview.

Bob Barr's testimony that he opposed his ex-wife's abortion conflicts with her sworn statement, which constitutes­by his own publicized standards­relevant evidence of perjury. Still, Barr claims that the issues raised by Larry Flynt have "not the remotest connection to the perjury and obstruction by William Jefferson Clinton."

On the defensive, Barr claims that his detractors are trying "to draw comparisons between an apple over here and an orange over there." Irrefutable evidence, however, indicates that Barr's critics are comparing apples to apples.  The difference between Bill Clinton's truth-fudging and Bob Barr's refusal to answer honestly is the difference between a wormy Red Delicious and a rotten Granny Smith.  Court documents indicate that Barr, while under oath,  withheld the truth about adulterous sex.  Barr's attorney has advised Jeri Dobbins, a witness in the case, to also (while under oath) withhold the truth about adulterous sex. These documents record the facts.

Barr's proven withholding of the truth exactly parallels the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, charges that Barr himself pursued as a prosecutor in the proceedings.

Bob Barr has long cultivated the reputation of a man who demands straight answers to hard questions. When talk-show host Larry King asked him on national television why he had been unable to tell the truth about his experiences with adultery, the Congressman obfuscated and prevaricated.  Barr responded, "Everything we have said, Larry, on this is in our statement.  It's well-documented."

Barr's statement contained no reference to the adultery charges whatsoever.  Adultery is a misdemeanor crime in Georgia.   Bob Barr became a U.S. attorney in 1986.  Did he therefore neglect an obligation to arrest himself for violating a statute that his job swore him to uphold?


And the final bit of icing on the cake.. Bob Barr's current wife? He was having an affair with her while still married to his second wife.   And then he lied about it during the divorce proceedings! Yes... Bob Barr committed perjury.  Good thing that's not "high crimes and misdemeanors". You could get kicked out of office for that... well, if you were a Democrat.

Hypocrisy: Fundraising

Barr was also hypocritical regarding fundraising. He has made numerous statements against Clinton regarding the (probably) dirty money that was funneled to the Democratic Party through Johnny Chuang and others (the money paid by foreigners into the 1996 Democratic campaign....illegal under U.S. law and a serious violation on the part of Clinton). As has been stated, he's been one of the strongest proponents of impeaching Clinton, on issues ranging from Lewinsky to fundraising to Whitewater. In addition, Barr's commitment to cleaning up the sort of fundraising that Clinton engages in would appear to be minimal at best. Not only did he fail to vote for the Shays-Meehan bill in the House that would ban most soft money contributions (and thus help to clean up our corrupt campaign financing system), but he was one of the few Republicans who voted against reprimanding Newt Gingrich for his illegal fundraising with GOPAC. In addition to this, Barr has also had some fundraising difficulties of his own.

Bob Barr, representative
of the evil empire.


It was Reported on CNN (March 31, 1998) that the Federal Election Commission had confirmed that Barr not only took the illegal cash, but also failed to report the contributions as required by law and also intentionally concealed the source of the funds! Of course, this would be grounds for Barr's dismissal... if only Congress had the time to hold a trial for him. BTW, you know who gave Bob the brunt of that money? Yep... the NRA. So not only is Bob a hypocrite, he's a crook!

A 1996 audit by the Federal Election Commission revealed that Barr's 1996 campaign collected about $55,000 in contributions that exceeded the legal limits. 72 contributors were identified by the FEC as exceeding the $1,000 per election limit on individual contributions for a grand total of $54,971 in illegal donations.  According to an auditor, $36,626 of this was returned before the audit, but they were issued "well beyond the 60-day period provided for making such refunds".  Barr's campaign, however, didn't return the remainder until the FEC revealed their illegality.  In addition to these "problem donations", the FEC found that Barr's campaign misstated its financial activity, failed to properly disclose political action committee (PAC) donations and did not make timely disclosures to the FEC of  all large donations. we feel these are gross violations of campaign finance laws and they do show that Barr, once again, is not the champion of clean government that he claims to be.

In addition to violations recognized by federal law, Barr also takes a rather large amount of money from industries he oversees. Barr sits on the Financial Services and Consumer Credit Sub-Committee, and the Domestic and International Monetary Policy Sub-Committee of the Banking and Financial Services Committee.  A full third of the money he received from PACs in the 1995-6 election was received from groups that he oversees. The list, available at American Politics, includes Suntrust of Georgia Bank PAC ($4,500), Independent Bankers Association PAC ($3,000), Credit Union Legislative Action PAC ($10,000), and American Bankers Association PAC ($6,500). All of these groups are overseen by Barr and obviously have something to gain by donating large sums of money to his reelection campaign. Oddly enough, Barr, while screaming about the Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals, has little to say about his own fundraising dirt.

Bob Barr: Racist Posterboy For The KKK  

Oh, and let's not forget that Bob was also tied to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a  white-supremacist racist group that preaches "integration is genocide."  On June 6, 1998, Barr, one of three key-note speakers at their annual national convention, delivered a speech to the CCC.   The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) continues to favor segregation and other such ideas, and its website features such fine statements as "Given what has come out in the press about Mr. Clinton's alleged [sexual] preferences, and his apparent belief that oral sex is not sex one wonders if perhaps Mr. Clinton isn't America's first liberal black president... His beliefs are actually a result of his inner black culture. Call him an Oreo turned inside out" (H. Millard, 1998).

When his racist connection was exposed, Barr claimed to be the victim of "unfounded and deplorable accusations and groundless attacks!" Congressman Barr staunchly maintained this defense until photographs of him in a "friendly pose", literally embracing the Council's leaders, came to light.   Hmmmmmm.  

In fact, he was  in 1998  (As was reported in the Washington Post )  Barr has said that he did not know the nature of the group when he was asked to speak for them. You'd think he might have been tipped off by the fact that one of the other speakers was KKK Poster Boy David Duke.  Hmmmmmmmm.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal group that monitors militias and other rightist organizations, the CCC is "reincarnation of the infamous White Citizens Councils,". In the 1950s and 60s, the White Citizens Council was known as the "uptown Klan". Essentially, it was an upscale Klu Klux Klan designed to attract society's elite to its cause and its membership was generally composed of individuals involved in local businesses and government. After the organization's demise, many members went on to create and lead the CCC. The chief executive of the CCC, Gordon Lee Baum,  was the midwest director for the White Citizens Council and the leader of Mississippi CCC, William Lord, was a regional organizer for the Citizen's Council. Because of these sorts of things, the CCC has even been kicked out of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). David Keene, head of CPAC, said "we kicked [them] out of CPAC because they are racists."

Bob Barr has given his support to this group, although to a much less degree than Trent Lott, who has spoken to and endorsed the group several times over the past few years. In June of 1998, Barr spoke to the group at a meeting in Charleston, North Carolina and seemed to be perfectly comfortable doing this...until the press heard about it. While Barr's speech did not specifically endorse the CCC, he almost undoubtedly supports it as he was perfectly willing to give a keynote speech to the group. After first attempting to not comment on the matter at all, Barr claimed that he had no idea that the group endorsed ideas such as segregation. In the first place, this is rather hard to believe as one has to only glance briefly at their website to realize that this is not a run of the mill conservative organization.  Second of all, the CCC's leader, Gordon Baum, claims that they sent their material to him before Barr spoke. "He knew what we were all about before he spoke to us,"  Baum said. "We don't invite people and let them walk into the dark on us." In addition, Barr also sat through the group's youth panel, where the group's views, according to Baum, were made explicit. Barr, in an answer to these charges, said the material he was given seemed to indicate it was a mainstream organization and supported by Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and a few other politicians (Helms and Lott are noted bigots, by the way). The youth panel also gave Barr "serious pause" but he spoke to them anyway. If Barr was really serious about avoiding the appearance of endorsing a racist group, he should have canceled his speech to the group much like the Lt. Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, did in 1994. He stated he canceled his speech after he learned who else was speaking and what the organization stood for.  He said  "he would never knowingly share the platform with someone affiliated with white supremacist and anti-Semitic organizations" because he "live[s] by the maxim, 'Avoid the very appearance of evil.'"

Much like Lott, Barr's speeches to a racist group are not an isolated incident. Bob Barr allowed the John Birch Society, an ultraconservative organization filled with Klu Klux Klansmen and other truly terrifying examples of the right, to pay for two of his trips to speak to the group's governing council about his attempts to impeach Clinton. For one of them, the group paid $1,060 to send Barr to San Francisco. Since the speech, the Birch society began to actively support Barr's efforts to impeach Clinton by selling T-shirts and buttons. They also turned a portion of their website into an impeach Clinton section which, in some ways, is similar to Barr's own ramblings on the matter at his own website.

Bob Barr: NRA's Legislator of the Year

Bob Barr (R-Geor.) has never met a gun he didn't like. That and his power position in the House earned him high marks from the National Rifle Association. In 1993-94, the NRA spent more than $4.7 million to help the Republicans take over Congress. And no other member of the House owes as much to the gun group as Barr. The NRA hand-picked him for the primary and then, in a move motivated by revenge, helped him defeat veteran Democrat Buddy Darden.

Early in 1994, when Barr began his run for Congress, the NRA provided his campaign with critical support and worked closely with him to get out the vote, knowing that with the low turnout expected for the off-year primary, it could make the difference. The Georgia Gun Owners' PAC, which received funds from the NRA, also threw its support behind Barr and provided $5,000 in crucial money for the primary race. Barr won handily.

The NRA put $4,950 more into Barr's campaign coffers when he moved on to face Darden in the general election. During his 11 previous years in Congress, Darden had enjoyed the NRA's backing. But not this time. Darden, annoyed at the organization's backroom maneuvering, had voted for the president's 1994 crime bill, which included the assault weapons ban. "The NRA decided to make an example of Buddy Darden, as a warning to others," says a leading Democratic strategist in Georgia. (A similar scenario played out in Texas, where Steve Stockman defeated Rep. Jack Brooks, a longtime NRA friend.)

Throughout the years, Barr has consistently advocated the National Rifle Association's positions on almost everything, ranging from gun control to impeaching Clinton. However, when he was a United States lawyer, Barr testified before a Georgia House panel on a bill to ban assault-style weapons. He appeared to be speaking in favor of gun control, although he now claims he was speaking in a neutral manner. Regardless of this small blip that may suggest his political views are a bit less certain than they appear, Barr has consistently acted as the NRA's best friend in congress. His championship of gun rights is so large that he was second in number of votes to Charlton Heston for the position of President of the NRA. Heston received 161,172 votes while Barr received 144,392. Barr also sits on the 76 member board of directors of the NRA, which obviously makes him friendly to the board's concerns.  

Barr championed almost every pro-gun bill imaginable and was the leading force in convincing the House to pass the repeal of the ban on semiautomatic assault rifles on March 22, 1997. The NRA's first vice-president, Neal Knox, said "It was Bob Barr's job to get it [the repeal of the ban] done, and he did". Barr has also proposed the abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and revoking the Brady Bill (which requires waiting periods before the purchase of handguns). Over the summer of 1997, Barr also pushed for a bill that would eliminate funding for research on gun-related fatalities at the Centers for Disease Control. In defense of this, he stated that the CDC has "not eradicated disease. They have work left to do". Evidently, because of this they shouldn't try to help people who've been shot with a semi-automatic rifle that Barr appears to want every man, woman, and child to own and operate. 

Barr's unabashedly pro-gun stance was a good part of the reason he was elected in 1994. The NRA worked closely with Barr's campaign to get out the vote in a non-presidential year election. The gun lobby, including the NRA, provided Barr's campaign with tens of thousands of dollars in 1994. The NRA was also part of a far right coalition that united behind Barr in 1994, including the John Birch Society, the Christian Coalition, and the National Right to Life Committee. Barr won the election narrowly, with 52% of the vote.

Barr: Fun Facts

Welfare Recipients: Barr took his distaste of welfare recipients to extremes when he asked FBI director Louis Freeh if the agency is conducting background checks on welfare recipients that are being hired by the White House.  Evidently, Barr was concerned they might try to steal important documents or something as he stated that hiring them raises "very serious security concerns".  The White House's response was that "To suggest that a single mother raising children and trying to move from welfare to work is inherently a greater security risk is offensive".  Evidently, Barr doesn't recognize that the greatest crooks reside in the capitol building.....not people on welfare.

Trials: When Barr served as a U.S attorney in Georgia in the mid 1980s, several odd things happened in light of modern day events.  Today, Barr proclaims that he is qualified to know that Clinton is at fault because he used to serve as a United States attorney, where he prosecuted many cases.  The records show, however, that Barr never tried a case...primarily, he gave speeches to the public and made a bunch of press releases.  Barr never made an opening or closing statement, never examined a witness, and never offered an objection.

This isn't highly unusual for a U.S. Attorney, but most at least participate in a trial in more than a supervisory role.   Barr's trial experience came as a defense lawyer, where he defended various criminals.  While its rather disturbing that Barr has been proclaiming that he tried many cases when, in fact, he tried none, its hardly a grand crime.  More disturbing, however, is that Barr, in a great disrespect to the law, repeatedly leaked court information to the press.  Ken Starr has been accused of this in the courts and its a highly illegal thing to do. Its illegal because one is innocent until proven guilty.   Information leaked to the press can wrongfully portray an individual and ruin their reputation, even if they are innocent.   Barr leaked to the press much that many of his assistant attorney's stopped telling him sensitive information out of fear that Barr would leak it to the press and, in the process, ruin their cases.   The local heads of law enforcement complained to Washington that Barr was doing this, which caused the Department of Justice to launch two investigations of Barr, the results of which have never been made public. In sum, Barr was hardly the sterling prosecutor he has recently portrayed himself to be.  Rather, he was an attorney who never prosecuted a case (and claimed he prosecuted many) and, in violation of the law, leaked information to the press.

Why Did Barr Win The Equine Posterior Achievement Award?

In 1999 People For the American Way bestowed its annual "Defenders of Democracy" award on Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, and the musical group Peter, Paul and Mary.

PFAW also honored 11 Americans from coast to coast for their work at the grassroots level in strengthening democratic institutions. And finally, in an announcement that marked the end of a spirited competition, Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, galloped away with the 1999 Equine Posterior Achievement Award.

"John Lewis teaches us that we must never accept injustice as the way things are, but must struggle every day to make justice a reality for every American," said PFAW President Carole Shields.  "We honor Lewis today for his role as a leader in the fight for liberty and justice for all."

"Peter, Paul and Mary have used their talent to give voice to the American conscience," Shields continued. "For more than three decades they have given us music that unites us and shown us that harmony can trump division and despair."

Shields also announced the recipients of the American People's awards. These awards were given to ordinary people who have done extraordinary things, giving their time and energy to defending our liberties and our democracy. A list of the winners, their hometowns and their accomplishments is included in today's media kit.

"Our democracy is stronger and more vibrant because of the people we are honoring this year," Shields said. "The American people who step forward every day to address the needs of their communities make our nation a fairer, better, stronger place and make our democracy work."

Finally, presenting the second annual Equine Posterior Achievement Award was Washington with Paul Begala.

"A number of Washington politicians competed for the award, but Barr was flank and shoulders below the competition," Shields said. "He has tried to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the will of the American people. He has misused his political power to attack women, minorities and gays. He has voted against good, proven programs like Head Start and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. He is, in other words, a genuine horse's patootie."

Last year's winner was Rep. Ernest Istook, R-OK, for his sponsorship of a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow captive-audience prayer in the public school classroom. The Equine Posterior Achievement Award is given to a "leader" whose abilities to misrepresent an issue and pander to our baser instincts have reached ridiculous levels.


It is alleged that Rep. Barr consistently defamed and slandered anyone who gets in his way, or as in the case of the Religion of Wicca, he attacked it, making political points with his Far Right conservative constituency.   Recently he decided that as the self described conscience of the Military, he knew which Religions they should and should not practice. He therefore sent a letter to the Military asking them to please not allow the practice of Wicca by any military personnel.

You know, it becomes even clearer why he won the prestigious 1999 Equine Posterior Achievement Award!

Following is an excerpt from a news article found at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Witches brew up protest for Barr meeting
By Steve Visser, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Rep. Bob Barr preached to the choir at a town meeting Saturday, but he still contended with a chorus of witches in between the "amens" that favored banning Wiccan religion on military bases.

The Georgia Republican fielded questions from witches, Christians and other constituents in a packed room at a Cobb County library in Marietta. Barr criticized the commander of Fort Hood this month for allowing a Wiccan rite on the Texas Army base.

Wicca is a pagan, nature-centered religion, also known as witchcraft. It has tax-exempt status, as do mainstream religions, and is rooted in pre-Christian Europe.

"Are you afraid of witches?" Amber Maeve Szmanski of Acworth, a high priestess in the Grove of the Winged Scarab, asked between interruptions from Barr supporters. "Our Founding Fathers had more intelligence than to try to establish a state religion. . . . If you remove the Wiccan, who will be next on your list?"

Barr told the crowd of 120 that Wicca threatened to erode military discipline--a fear not uttered publicly by military commanders--and the First Amendment needed to take a back seat to that concern.

He favored the free exercise of Wicca in civilian life or by military personnel off their bases.  He claimed officially sanctioning Wicca would open the door to other religious practices, such as peyote use by Native Americans. The Department of Defense is drawing up regulations to cover the use of the hallucinogenic drug, he said.

Barr would leave it to elected leaders to decide which religions could be practiced in the military, he said, adding that it wasn't unreasonable to ban Wicca services on a military base while permitting worship by Christians, Jews and Muslims.

"We are a nation that believes in God," he said. "It's on our money. It's on our documents."

Most of the audience supported Barr, who received a standing ovation and testimonials to his character. Several giggled at the Wiccans or tried to shout down those who protested Barr's letter to Fort Hood's commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Leon S. LaPorte, asking him to "stop this nonsense."

The Fort Hood celebration was described as a rite of spring marking the vernal equinox, with more than 50 witches, male and female, participating.

The Good people in Georgia are sickened by this hypocrite, who, according to his ex-wife had ambitions to become President of the United States and retire as a Supreme Court Justice.   If Barr's vision of his own future comes to pass, those of us who remain will witness nothing less than the symptoms of a cancer on America.

It is rumored that there is some choice information concerning his past and present "public" life.  We will print it when we verify it.


Bob Barr's Links

The following links are offered to show a consistent pattern of religious discrimination and questionable moral actions regarding freedom of religion.

  • Mother Jones did an expose on Barr and several other corrupt congressmen/women.
  • American Politics: One of the articles American Politics has done on Barr. It provides a decent overview of Barr and criticizes several of his policies, including his rabid impeachment drive and his fundraising tactics.
  • Hustler magazine has the Larry Flyntt Report and its page on Barr, including an affidavit from Gail Barr at:   (XXX Rated site, not recommended for juveniles or anyone shocked by pictures of an erotic nature.)


DISCLAIMER: The Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast (RFCSE) is a non-advocacy Religious site paid for with volunteer labor and edited by Rebecca, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen.  The RFCSE site was published beginning on February 1, 1999.   No Permission is required by the RFCSE, for reprinting.  But permission by originating authors may be needed.  The duration of the working links are not under our control.  RFCSE has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site is at your own risk.

All articles and descriptions of persons or organizations on this page, are the resposibility of  the submitter.  The Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast, the association of Cymry Wicca and all others who provide hosting for this page, bear no legal responsibility for any errors.   But we will immediately investigate all claims of mistakes or errors, and if such a claim is found to be with merit, we will remove an error.  But, if the claim of an error is found meritless, we will bill the the claimant for the cost of researching the claim, and if warranted, seek redress in the court system.  Any attempt to interfere with our first amendemnt right of opinion and free expression will be met with the full force of the U. S. Court system.

Our Original Web Master, an associate died from a threat by a person  who did not appreciate Religious Freedom.  Before she died, she asked us to continue her Religious Freedom Page.  We will.  Even though we have been attacked by Right Wing extremists, pseudo-Christian apologists, and other fringe elements of the Christian Right and Left, we still exist because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.   We have been threatened by some, that we will be sued for exposing religious bigotry and hate.  Since we have no assets, but a great deal of voluntary legal support, we will welcome each attempt to silence us, as an opportunity to expose, in open court, the characteristics and lies of these so called "religiouis leaders."  We will feel free to request an extensive production of documents.

Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, who were deists (not Christians), helped frame the Constitution of The United States of American and placed language in the First Amendment to guarantee Religious Rights for all Americans.  We will uphold that tradition.

Bob Barr

For information on all individuals and organizations listed in this website, or the name of a contact person in your area that can give you further information on the Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast, or the First Amendment Coalition, call us at 000-000-0000 If you access our voice mail, we will call you back collect if long distance.

Or, you can write to Rachel at: RFCSE, P.O. Box 673206, Marietta, GA 30006-0006

Return to the Religious Freedom Homepage

free page hit counter

Bob Barr This site was created by the Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast and the Georgia First Amendment Coalition
design copyright 1998 an associate

Author:  Rebecca Lawrence
Copyright © 1977, 1992, 2001 by Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast.   All rights reserved.
Revised: 13 Dec 2011 02:15:49 -0500