Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Votes To Undercut High Court On Property (Nancy Pelosi expose follows excerpt)
The Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2005

Posted on 07/06/2005 8:36:39 PM PDT by Founding Father

The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.

---snip---

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: corruption; eminentdomain; kelo; pelosi; ratner; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
During her June 30, 2005 press conference

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49773

Pelosi states:

"Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that."

Notice the phrase, "this is almost as if God has spoken."

Who is Nancy Pelosi's God? Well, there was an interesting development in the Bay Area as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/02/BAGO4DI6GJ1.DTL

"Last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city's plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.

But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.

A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.

"I have the perfect location; my customers who work downtown can drop off their cars and walk back here," said Revelli, 65, pointing at the nearby high- rises. "The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It's not fair."

The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week paved the way for local governments to buy out unwilling property owners, demolish homes and businesses, and turn that land over to new owners for development. Last week's ruling expanded on earlier decisions that allowed agencies to take property only if it is considered "blighted" or run-down.

"The city thinks I cause 'economic blight' because I don't produce enough tax revenue,'' Revelli said. "We thought we'd win, but the Supreme Court took away my last chance."

The two properties, which total 6,500 square feet, were being forced to move or sell because their businesses are on a larger section of land that is slated for the Uptown Project, a city-subsidized real estate development that is expected to include nearly 1,200 apartments and condominiums.

The project's wedge-shaped lot, just west of the 19th Street BART Station, includes several blocks roughly bounded by 20th Street, 17th Street, Telegraph Avenue and San Pablo Avenue.

Both Revelli Tire and Autohouse, owned and operated by Tony Fung, are on the northern edge of the project in the 400 block of 20th Street, which is also called Thomas L. Berkley Way.

The eviction came as no surprise to Revelli and Fung. The city has designated their block as a redevelopment area for about 20 years. Before approving the Uptown Project last year, the city considered putting in a shopping mall, then an arena for the Golden State Warriors and later a ballpark for the Oakland Athletics.

The decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there.

"This is the part of redevelopment everyone hates," said Hamid Gami, who is coordinating the relocation for Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency.

"It's tough. They're good people. We've offered them fair compensation, and we hope to come to an agreement. But this is a really important new development. The city has been trying to do this for years. It's good for all of Oakland. It's going to be a great project."

Gami said he hopes to work out a settlement with Revelli and Fung.

The business owners said they clung to hopes that the eminent domain decision might be overturned in court or that they could persuade the city to build the project and leave them alone.

"All those new residents will need someone to work on their cars," said Revelli, who has been working in the shop since he was in third grade helping his dad and uncle. "I don't want their money. I don't want to move. I just want to work right here."

Most of the other businesses closed their doors and left in the past two years. The only other holdout, Chef Edward's Barbeque, is expected to reopen about a block and a half away.

Fung and Revelli said the money offered by the city, about $100 per square foot plus relocation costs, was insufficient, saying the real estate boom has priced them out of nearby properties. They own their properties outright and have operated with low overhead.

"John works alone; I have one technician working with me -- that's it, '' said Fung, who bought his 2,500-square-foot shop in 1993. "The cost of buying or leasing a new site is prohibitive. The money the city offered me does not cover it."

Revelli, who has worked alone for the past 35 years, said no other location is as good as what he is losing.

"My customers are mainly women who work in the offices downtown. They can take BART if they have to leave their cars overnight," Revelli said. "There's really no equivalent location around here."

Both men said Friday that losing their businesses was like losing a piece of themselves.

"I've worked here full time since 1959, and I looked forward to coming to work every day," Revelli said. "I'm not ready to retire, but the city forced me into this. I don't have many options."

Fung, who is in his late 40s and raising his children, said retirement is not an option.

"I'm an immigrant from China, and this has been the fulfillment of my American dream," Fung said. "I worked hard. I played by the rules. But now it's all gone. I've got to start all over." "

Who is the private developer that is the beneficiary of this taking of property form the Mom and Pop business owners? Nancy Pelosi knows.

You can learn more about the Uptown project here:

http://www.urbanstrategies.org/programs/econopp/REAP/ed_watch/2003-03-24.html

One interesting excerpt tells who the developer is:

"The Uptown Project, to be developed by Uptown Partners, LLC (Forest City Residential West) calls for approximately 1,500 to 1,700 residential units, 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of commercial, retail and service uses, a 25,000 square foot park, and 1,700 to 2,000 parking spaces primarily in parking structures."

Now, who is Forest City Residential West?? A multi-state development company whose co-chairman is Albert B. Ratner:

http://www.fceinc.com/about_board_a_ratner.html

So who is Albert B. Ratner? Why he and other members of the Ratner family are contributors to, drumroll surprise, one Nancy Pelosi and other democrats.

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Ratner&txtState=OH&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=Pelosi&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N"

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?Order=D&txtName=Ratner&txtState=OH&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N

The Ratners gave over $700,OOO in the last cycle, some to republicans.

Would you believe it gets even better? Ratner's brother, Michael, is the head of the George Soros funded Center for Constitutional Rights

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18446

Forest City also is the developer of property seized by NYC for the purpose of transferring to the New York Times and is developing a large expropriated tract in Brooklyn,

http://www.westsidestadium.com/content/newsarchives/nyt60905brooklyn.htm

See also:

http://reason.com/sullum/070105.shtml

Follow the money and it is no surprise that democrats are supportive of the Kelo decision as are NYC, SF and Oakland city governments.

For a more complete review, go here:

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007915.php

1 posted on 07/06/2005 8:36:42 PM PDT by Founding Father
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
The violation of the "separation of powers" doctrine occurs in the guise of funds the federales send directly to local governments.

A return to original principles would eliminate all such funds!

Pelosi just doesn't get it.

2 posted on 07/06/2005 8:39:59 PM PDT by muawiyah (/sarcasm and invective)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters.

Will Pelosi feel the same way with a Conservative majority on the court, or does her "God-like" devotion only apply to liberal activist judges?

3 posted on 07/06/2005 8:42:16 PM PDT by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

Good grief. That's the most incredible interview I've ever seen!

The reporter says, "I apologize if I framed the question poorly." But she deliberately misunderstands the question twice, and then goes on to lie about the nature of the congressional resolution and the nature of the separation of powers.

I don't think she's stupid enough to believe any of this stuff, but I've seldom seen a more confused and self-indicting propaganda statement.


4 posted on 07/06/2005 8:42:47 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Q: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.


Someone call RUSH to confirm his 'prediction' of the SC being their 'relgion' and the Justices GODS.
5 posted on 07/06/2005 8:45:26 PM PDT by FreedomNeocon (I'm in no Al-Samood for this Sheiite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

By contrast, the Washington Post article is surprisingly fair and objective.

I wonder which 31 Republicans voted against?


6 posted on 07/06/2005 8:45:45 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

...Pelosi just doesn't get it....

You said a mouthful there. If she thinks the Supreme Court cannot be questioned, then what the hell do we need representatives for?

I hope the people get it one of these days and vote her and her kind out.


7 posted on 07/06/2005 8:47:23 PM PDT by planekT (The Supreme Can of Worms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Noachian
"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," she told reporters. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."

The court doesn't make laws. They simply enforce them.
The liberal activists abused their power, and the house is taking the law back. It's not a violation of the Constitution. The house is correcting the error.

8 posted on 07/06/2005 8:47:30 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Vote Republican - Vote morally correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
"So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision."

Someone call RUSH to confirm his 'prediction' of the SC being their 'relgion' and the Justices GODS.

Holy crap! The liberals do see the judges as their pagan Gods! Now THAT is scary!

9 posted on 07/06/2005 8:51:26 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Vote Republican - Vote morally correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I don't think she's stupid enough to believe any of this stuff, but I've seldom seen a more confused and self-indicting propaganda statement.

I've not read a lot of what Ms. Pelosi has said (mainly because it doesn't take long to see what a waste of time it is) but what I have read leads me to believe she truly is that unintelligent. Her voters have a lot to answer for.

10 posted on 07/06/2005 8:56:39 PM PDT by skr (Almighty God, thank you for the liberty you have bestowed upon this nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

She's as dumb as a fence post. What an embarrassment to Cali.


11 posted on 07/06/2005 8:57:49 PM PDT by Ron in Acreage (It's the borders stupid! "ALLEN IN 08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
A return to original principles would eliminate all such funds!

Exactly. Search as I may I have yet to find authority for the spending of such funds. Congress clearly went beyond the powers delegated to it under The Constitution. The fact that it is now retreating slightly should be applauded.

12 posted on 07/06/2005 8:58:26 PM PDT by Timocrat (I Emanate on your Auras and Penumbras Mr Blackmun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

You might notice that the Post article bowdlerizes Ms Pelosi's quote so that she doesn't appear to be a complete moron to its readers...

13 posted on 07/06/2005 8:59:37 PM PDT by bt_dooftlook (Democrats - the "No Child/Left/Behind" Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
It is fascinating to me, as an old Court hand, that the judicial issue is becoming the dominant one, and they are fumbling the ball in both the House and the Senate. Here, Pelosi demonstrates her utter cluelessness, and total disconnect from the normal people of the United States.

Of course, Chuck Schumer held up his end in the same department with his comment on Amtrak that "This is war," on Supreme Court appointments, before any nomination had been made. The lib-Dems are on the wrong side of what is now a major issue in America.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Replace Justice O'Connor -- But Which One?"

14 posted on 07/06/2005 9:03:05 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush appoint a Justice who obeys the Constitution? I give 65-35 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

Is she dumber than dog dookie or what?


15 posted on 07/06/2005 9:03:51 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
The decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there
There are no redevelopment funds without federal "redevelopment funds"...They may have screwed themselves out of federal funding.
16 posted on 07/06/2005 9:03:54 PM PDT by lewislynn ( Is calling for energy independence a "protectionist" act?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

1 was a disgusting Rino who represents my district in VA. Frank Wolf


17 posted on 07/06/2005 9:06:02 PM PDT by kublia khan (total war brings absolute victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

LOL. Now here's a tact worth trying. Couldn't the decision be overturned on the basis of the state(SCOTUS) imposing its religion on the masses.

18 posted on 07/06/2005 9:08:39 PM PDT by Zack Attack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 350
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 3058      RECORDED VOTE      30-Jun-2005      2:38 PM
      AUTHOR(S):  Garrett of New Jersey Amendment
      QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Amendment

  Ayes Noes PRES NV
Republican 192 31   7
Democratic 39 157   6
Independent   1    
TOTALS 231 189   13


---- AYES    231 ---

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Pallone
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

---- NOES    189 ---

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Cleaver
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wolf
Wu
Wynn

---- NOT VOTING    13 ---

Bachus
Bishop (GA)
Cooper
Cramer
Everett
Kingston
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Tiahrt
Westmoreland

19 posted on 07/06/2005 9:10:22 PM PDT by RWR8189 (I Will Sit on My Hands in 2008 Instead of Voting for McCain)(No Money for the NRSC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zack Attack
"Now here's a tact worth trying."

That would be "tack," Zack!
Sailing vessels tack, in order to travel in a direction other than the one the wind is blowing, but often have to travel in several different directions to reach their intended destination.

These indirect paths are called "tacks."

20 posted on 07/06/2005 9:26:46 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson