Slashdot Mirror

Environmental extremists are extremely bad for the real environmental reform.
So there was no smile on my face because I was dead serious.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4780

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13367

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512c.asp

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?L EARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_Ameri ca&xpicked=4&item=eco

During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved.

http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htm
Washington (CNSNews.com) - As concerns about eco-terrorism mount on Capitol Hill, there is more finger-pointing aimed at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which admits to having provided financial support to a group allegedly connected to the terrorism.

But while PETA acknowledges that some of its money has in the past gone to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and to the legal defense funds for several Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members, the organization denies that any of its money "goes toward illegal activities."

not political

You sure about that? Name one war in history that would have been possible if not for the existence of concentrated power (i.e. organized coercion, what we commonly know as "government").

Ready for the truth? Governments have killed thousands of orders of magnitude more innocent human beings than all the most ruthless criminals (including criminal organizations) in world history combined. This is the natural effect of concentrated power -- war is not only made possible by government, but inevitable, as history has proven over and over again. Governments are essentially ticking time bombs waiting to kill.

From this article:

How many people, in fact, have been killed by government violence in the 20th century? Not deaths in wars and civil wars among military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent victims with either the approval or planning of governments -- the intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people under their political control? The answer is: 169,198,000. If the deaths of military combatants are added to this figure, governments have killed 203,000,000 in the 20th century.

The world population in 1991 is estimated to have been approximately 5,423,000,000. In 1991, Europe's population was about 502,000,000. The United States in 1990 had a population of about 249,000,000. This means that governments killed about 3.7 percent of the human race in this century, or an equivalent of over 40 percent of all the people in Europe, or a number equal to over 80 percent of all the people in the U.S.

Tobacco illegal for those under age.
Alcohol illegal to purchase on certain days, or even for adults under 21 years old.
Marijuana a schedule 1 drug. [substances which are of such extreme danger to life...]
Ecstasy. Heroin. Another couple hundred drugs.
Prostitution between consenting adults.
Gambling.
And pornography is "illegal" in some areas.
Morality laws are abundant here is the USA.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0311f.asp

Forgive me if I harbour a naive belief that freedom and democracy might possibly be self-sustaining.

Not even the Founding Fathers believed that; that's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

Ben Franklin (from here):

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Thomas Jefferson:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

etc.

1. Argumentum ad hominem (tu quoque).

2. Commentary regarding Clinton's wiretaps.

3. Interesting article from the right about Clinton's requests for wiretapping authority, 5 years before 9/11.

-Mike

Sorry, you can't blame this court for that ruling. The decision that growing a crop in one state for consumption in that state is Interstate commerce can be laid squarely at the feet of FDR and his court in 1942.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -- and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

Yes. President Wilson

He's mostly remembered in history as the president who brought America into World War 1 (and who unsucessfully tried to create a lasting peace with the creation of the League of Nations), but what is often overlooked is his attack on civil liberties at home. His presidency makes George W Bush's look positively tame.

With the use of the Sedition Act (created back in 1798 but never used), the new Espionage Act (1917) and the Alien Act (1918), Wilson pretty much went to war and destroyed the left wing in the United States. Ill-defined laws, it permitted arrest for things as simple as speaking against the war effort or membership in the communist party. Newspapers were heavily censored, mail routinely opened and read. Wilson and his administration encouraged a climate of fear, and suggested people spy and report on any unpatriotic neighbors.

In fairness, at the time America was quite a different country than it is today; there was a huge influx of immigrants and a tremendous upsurge in radical groups and new ideas, a good number of which advocated overthrow of the US government. America was also at war with Germany, at a time when about 40% of the country was of German descent. There was true fear that the country was threatened by forces within. However, the steps Wilson took were far more drastic than were needed.

A good introduction to some of this stuff can be found at http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0204f.asp . I learned about it with the more specific cases discussed at http://www.seditionproject.net/ . PBS also has a nice summary of some of it in their documentary about Emma Goldman (a radical and anarchist) at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldman/peopleevents/ e_redscare.html

Unfortunately, this part of American history is largely forgotten, which is a shame because it has a lot of parallels to today. But I guess it's like they say: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Libertarians need to learn some marketing. From what I can tell, they are the party that supports selling off all roads and sidewalks, essentially abolishing the right to travel.

Indeed, if that's your impression, then marketing certainly isn't working.

So what did people do before the government owned all the highways? They built them themselves. Look up "turnpike" in a history book, and be amazed.

They seem to be inconsistent in some messages (i.e., they are pro-business, when they should be for limitations on corporations based of how they describe liberty).

Limitations of what? Do you really mean, allowing the people who own and run organizations to be held responsible for their "organization's" actions? That isn't pro- or anti-business, that's anti government-granted-limited-liability.

Why should I change if public roads work so good?

They do? As someone stuck in traffic on the only road between A and B some time.

Yes, public schools are cheaper than private.

Actually, they're not. The public schools spend more than $10,000 per student, per year, every year, and it's only going up. Private schools charge far less than that, and get better academic performance on every measurement. Homeschoolers spend a fraction of that and beat public and private schools.

Try http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ for a little background on the subject of "public" education.

If you like video instead of reading, try doing a little bit of piracy and finding "ABC's 20/20 Stupid In America". While John Stossel comes down hard in favor of vouchers, the reasons why are what will shock you to your boots if you are paying attention.

Social Security is run with a lot less overhead than Wall Street funds doing the same T-bill investments.

Social Security is not an investment at all, it's a ponzi scheme. Present beneficiaries are being paid out of present donations. There is no trust fund, there is no set-aside, the money goes into and comes out of the general fund.

The only reason SS is said to "cost less" is because the government doesn't include sallaries of government employees or costs of the buildings and facilities in their "cost" estimates.

When the Libertarian message gets me benefits (and I think those that run can manage to impliment their ideas), I might consider them.

Those lists of benefits are out there. http://www.fff.org/ http://www.lewrockwell.com/ http://www.mises.org/ http://www.cato.org/ http://www.pennradio.com/

If the only information you are listening to comes from government, as your statements of "fact" indicates, then no wonder you have a bad impression of "libertarians".

Until then, they are the party for government-hating gun nuts (and no, people that support the 2nd Amendment aren't gun nuts, the people that get upset they can't have their Desert Eagle strapped to their hip wandering around their children's kindergarden are gun nuts).

When someone comes to the school your child is in and starts killing them (even though murder is illegal) with whatever weapon they choose to use (regardless of any law to the contrary), you'd better pray that some principled gun owner who chose not to be disarmed by law is there to stop them. ...like what happened in Pearl, Mississippi, when a killer decided to visit a "gun free zone". Oh, you didn't hear about that? Then may I suggest http://www.johnrlott.com/ _The Bias Against Guns_ by John R. Lott?

But that would re

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0603e.asp The New Mercantilism

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy17.html Patently Absurd

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.htm l The Fraud of Intellectual Property

http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002935.asp Mises Economics Blog: Bill Gates: Anti-IP Movement Is Communist

I wish the Pirate party far better success than the Libertarians have had. It is surprising that the message of Liberty does not resonate in the United States.

Bob-

According to this link, Hitler killed about a third as many as Stalin did. Most of these deaths occured during the Second World War (a six year period, half of Hitler's time in power), while Stalin was in power for around 30 years. If I count correctly, Hitler had more people under his control at the maximum extent of the Nazi empire, but only at most a few years to institute the worst of the genocide and purges in those areas. So frankly, the two are quite comparable, and Hitler was probably worse especially since he instituted long term programs of genocide (Stalin's Ukraine genocide FWIW wasn't permanent). Hitler just wasn't in power long enough. A really scary extreme is Pol Pot. He strikes me as the worst of the worst.

Sure beats letting the market determine who recieves care. Here, the rich get vanity surgery and specialists for everything, while the poor are treated only in the emergency room. From a humanitarian standpoint, our system is a failure.

We don't have free-market health care in the United States. Heck, we are literally a stone throw away at implementing socialized medicine in the United States. The high cost of health care is due to the cartelization and licensing of doctors and medicine, as well as government regulations. In fact, the US government spends more per capita on health care than even Cuba (communism's current trademark) does. Read here to see what the AMA has done to health care, as well as this article, which describes how the United States's health care is anything but free-market.

I agree that our health care situation is bad, but the last thing that we need is socialized medicine. We need to move away from socialism. Socialism is a mistake of the 20th century, and it is best that we finally use free-market ideas.

A 1990 piece by Lawrence W. Reed used similar wording (although it also implied that the idea was taken from another prior work): "It has been said that many civilizations have run their course by this pattern: From bondage to individualism to great courage to liberty to abundance, then from abundance to complacency to apathy to dependency and finally back to bondage again." http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690c.asp

How is democratic control over corporations socialism?

Main Entry: socialism
  Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
  Function: noun
  1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Just because the politicians are elected doesn't make it any less "socialism". Either I retain the power to dispose of my property as I see fit, and face the consequences for my actions, or I do not truly own my property, my production, my labor, my life.

It's just not laissez-faire.

Exactly. The opposite of "laissez-faire" is "socialism".

I'm certainly not going to give up all my rights to a swindler in a suit because I think the government is bloated.

You've already given up all your rights to a swindler in a suit, the politicians themselves.

Abusive corporations have always depended upon government coercion for their positions to abuse. The myth that big government opposes big business is one of the most successful "Big Lies" in America, likely in the entire world.

If you're interested in how big business and big government work together to fleece you, I can suggest you wander through the articles on http://www.fff.org/ and http://www.mises.org/ , LewRockewll.com, or just for one example notice that Enron had based their entire business model on leveraging government "energy credits". Abusive big business *loves* big government, and abusive big government *loves* the campaign contributions of big business.

Bob-

Congress is the only body that can declare war - it is in the constitution. Look it up sometime. You claim to have worked for the NSA, but are apparently ignorant of basic constitutional law. Every military action from the Korean war to Vietnam to the Gulf war was an authorized use of force by the congress, not a declaration of war.

The United States has not legally declared war since WWII. The congress authorized "the use of force" against IRAQ, but did not declare war.

It's the reason they couldn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason during the Vietnam war - there was NO LEGAL STATE OF WAR - it was a "use of military force".

If they did declare war, they would be bound by the Geneva Convention, which would mean George Bush would be prosecuted as a war criminal for the torture at Abu-Garaib.

No declaration of war means no expanded war powers either.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp

"under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.

What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn't that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make.

Therefore, when a U.S. president wages what might otherwise be considered a just war, if he has failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, he is waging an illegal war -- illegal from the standpoint of our own legal and governmental system. And when the American people support any such war, no matter how just and right they believe it is, they are standing not only against their own principles and heritage, not only against their own system of government and laws, but also against the only barrier standing between them and the tyranny of their own government -- the Constitution."

Here are a few links for those who are unaware of the price supports the U.S. Govt. gives out:

As in, Congress passes a law saying soldiers must be quartered (or if you think having police power installed on a router is quartering, Congress passes a law requiring police power installed on routers.) We're at war with terrorists, recall. I don't think the courts would buy that a University of buisness is a "house" in any event. Use encryption if you want privacy.

For the benefit of those that sadly believes what you wrote, here are some choise citations from Robin Cook's 'Ethical' Foreign Policy :

Kenny is presumably unaware that president Truman's chief of staff, admiral William D. Leahy, wrote that using the "barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons". He lamented that the US government "had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages". (Quoted, Anthony Gregory, 'Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,' August 6, 2004, http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408b.asp)

The US Strategic Bombing Survey, which interviewed 700 Japanese military and political officials after the war, came to this conclusion:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Quoted, Howard Zinn, The Zinn Reader, Seven Stories, 1997, p.350)

In 1963, former US president Dwight Eisenhower told Newsweek that "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing". (Gregory, op. cit)

Brigadier general Carter Clarke, the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables for president Truman and his advisors, commented:

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." (Gregory, ibid)

Truckers in outback Australia take speed to help them stay awake and make up for all the time they spent with mates/at brothel/corporate deadline.

In the case of the Air Force, they have determined a safety regime to make the drug measured and safe to protect their multi million $$$ investment [the pilot]

In the case of Truckers, they self diagnose, self dose and often overdo it or underdo it. Several High Grossing Vehicles have killed innocent people because of the practice.

If you have ever had an ecstacy tablet, it most likely had speed in it. I hate speed myself. The worst thing about speed, having tried it, is that it makes you aggressive, short of temper and makes your teeth loose.

I wonder what side effects these awake drugs will have.

Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat -- some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -- and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it.

Are you sure a Bush appointee would vote in favor of property rights? The Bush administration prepared an amicus brief against the homeowners according to the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ article is in their paid archive, but here's a article discussing it. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501g.asp

Unfortunately, the limits of "public use" are not defined well by the 5th Amendment. On the other hand, this ruling does not say that the city, state or federal government cannot pass regular legislation to define the term. A federal bill should be proposed to define what uses are allowed under the "public use" term.

I'm no fan of the PATRIOT ACT but there is actually a lot of necessary changes in it. It allows different agencies to work more closely together, which is a good thing.

I have a feeling that a national ID is one of those things they will continue to push until they finally get it. President, Congress, none of that matters, they will do it regardless. They, Them - The Men In Black.

about national id under clinton
Know your customer
Lots of other articles on this, check with google. Type in "clinton national id" and "clinton know your customer".

As the China and Indian get wealthier they wont give a fucking shit about the US and UK getting poorer, just like we didnt give a shit about them living in poverty and squalor while we enjoyed our spin on the affluence merry go round.

I take it that the whole Chinese-Maoist-Communist "kill 35,000,000+ of our own people while destroying the economy by collectivization and cultural revolution" thing slipped by you, right? But hey, what's a little mega-murder and communist "economics" among friends? Cough. Cough. cannibalism?

Well, one of the more entertaining bits and pieces of the Patriot Act is the new powers that Law Enforcement has to ferret out terrorism and money laundering.

Because, as we know, drugs pay for terrorism.

"Would you have voted for Hitler? Me either. So what's the problem?"

That is silly.

Do you have any idea how Hitler got into power in Germany?

Here is how Hitler became a Dictator.

Remember that politicians dont get to power by telling the world "I'm gonna kill thousands of innocents". They get away with those acts by keeping their citizen under FEAR and IGNORANCE.

If you're a Bush supporter, allow me to doubt you would not have voted for Hitler if you were a German citizen at that time. The Bush administration is master at using terror alerts and images of mushroom clouds to inspire fear and justify their wars.

In that excerpt:
Open Source software...that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies
This think-tank is espousing mercantilism (i.e. managing government policy to agglomerate measurable assets), the very policies that de Tocqueville himself so bitterly criticized.

If I invent an affordable Star Trek transporter, the value of United Airlines would go down, because we won't need them anymore, and that is a good thing. Even if it is not good for UAL stockholders.

I think you're confused. The Germans volunteered to change the names of things such as saurekraut (I'm only half German) to "Liberty Cabbage" during WWII because they were getting persecuted so much by (you guessed it) Americans. We Americans know that the French are too stuck up to stick it to themselves so we changed "their" things to names like "Freedom Toast." And I'm not old. I learned that "Liberty Cabbage" thing from Grandpa Simpson. I kid you not. Simpson's is edumacational.

And besides, even the govenment couldn't change the name to "Freedom Hosts" because even they are slaves to VeriSign. It'd be all wrapped up in too much irony. Even for this administration.

Source

Ben

When are we going to learn that these tax dollars are not being spent wisely? The private market, if left uninhibited by tariffs, regulations, and restrictions, could do a better job of getting us to the moon. NASA is just a government stamping agency that shovels money to the protected few -- mercantilism at its "finest."

I'd like to see other reasons to get into space. Scientific altruism is not in my pocketbook, so I'm sick of my dollars being forced from me through coercion and wasted on NASA.

When are we going to learn that these tax dollars are not being spent wisely? The private market, if left uninhibited by tariffs, regulations, and restrictions, could do a better job of getting us to the moon. NASA is just a government stamping agency that shovels money to the protected few -- mercantilism at its "finest."

I'd like to see other reasons to get into space. Scientific altruism is not in my pocketbook, so I'm sick of my dollars being forced from me through coercion and wasted on NASA.

When are we going to learn that these tax dollars are not being spent wisely? The private market, if left uninhibited by tariffs, regulations, and restrictions, could do a better job of getting us to the moon. NASA is just a government stamping agency that shovels money to the protected few -- mercantilism at its "finest."

I'd like to see other reasons to get into space. Scientific altruism is not in my pocketbook, so I'm sick of my dollars being forced from me through coercion and wasted on NASA.

Does anyone know how passports originated?

How about: ``I told you it was a Ponzi scheme!''?

I suppose that the really sad part is that most of those people, some of whom did actually ``worked hard their entire lives'', could have saved up enough to be secure in their old age, IF they hadn't been saddled with paying for FDR's nasty little Ponzi scheme all these years.

What's that? Oh, you wanted a solution? Well, we'll have to choose between collecting enough taxes to keep them on welfare, as they did for their parents, and letting them eat catfood. When the baby boomers were supporting their parents, there were a LOT of boomers, and few retired parents. Soon, there will be scads of retired boomers, and few young workers. THAT's why the Ponzi scheme is crashing, as they all eventually must. The catfood option may be forced upon us: we may not be able to do any better. There's a bit of poetic justice in that: it was the boomer's socialist leanings [1] that kept our economy from growing the way it could have with a bit more economic freedom.

By the way, this is a problem all over.

[1] Some links to neat places on that page, BTW.

When Donald Rumsfeld is saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then he is making the same appeal to ignorance that Carl Sagan has described, and that I have met over and over again in various newsgroups.

And check out the idiot posters...

Amazing what is considered "insightful" these days. This knuckle-dragger seems like he is barely able to understand how fire works, much less a keyboard.

'millitary' is correctly spelled 'military'.
'thats' should actually be written as "that's".
He also needs to learn what the [SHIFT] button is for.

Others have already reiterated the definition of terrorism. I would just like to point out that the United States Military is hardly a bastion of nobility. For such things as exposing american citizens to nuclear fallout or toxic gases, I really don't get to worked up about hacking until bullets are flying.
So go wave your stupiÈâáag. You are proof that ignorance is bliss...

owned his own land, consumed his own food, raised his own seed and even made his own farming implements. Yet when he grew a federally banned crop they cracked down.

Wickard v. Filburn was not about a banned crop but rather about private growth and consumption competing with a rationed crop. Marijuana, on the other hand, is banned; therefore, the precedent may not strictly apply.

Besides, the Lopez case seems to represent a turnaround in the Supreme Court's view of the loose interpretation of Congress's enumerated powers. A win for the "good guys" in Eldred v. Ashcroft would also show that there still exist some things outside Congress's enumerated powers.

Actually, that's only true from one set of perspectives. Think of it this way: Your title to the house is merely a piece of paper that says that the house is yours. All it means is that you can get men in blue uniforms with guns to show up and kick other people out of the house if you want, assuming the political climate stays roughly equivalent to what it is.

This does not mean you "own" the house, any more than having control of the police force and the ability to break into people's houses, kill them, and take their property means you "own" the house (but then, when has that ever stopped anyone?)

Read these for more info on why the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Eye-opening...

First

Second

Read these for more info on why the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Eye-opening...

First

Second

Secure network? The gummint can't
even keep drugs out of prisons!

An attempt at using the concept of 'eminent domain', which is a common excuse for governmental entities to seize control of legitimately-held private property. Take a look at Jacob Hornberger's work with the Future of Freedom Foundation, and take a look at Harry Brown's (Libertarian candidate for US President, '96 and 2000) running mate's record of fighting eminent domain in California for good reasons why the concept is flawed, immoral, unjust, corrupt, and intellectually bankrupt (if you need reasons other than your own, that is)

Maybe slightly off-topic but on Saturday, February 5, C-SPAN will air a speech by Jacob Hornberger, President of the Future of Freedom Foundation and one of the finest speakers in the libertarian movement.

Hornberger's speech is entitled "Exploding Myths about Open Borders."

However, it is far more than a speech on immigration. Hornberger begins by speaking directly to the C-SPAN audience -- describing libertarianism and the libertarian movement.

AIRING TIME:

The speech will be broadcast as part of C-SPAN's "American Perspectives" program. Jacob's speech is scheduled to begin "approximately" ten minutes after 10 pm, Eastern Standard Time, Saturday, February 5.:

C-SPAN tells me your best bet is to tune in at 10 pm, where you'll see the concluding minutes of another speech, which will be immediately followed by Hornberger's speech.:

REPEAT AIRING:

The speech will be repeated three hours later, beginning "approximately" ten minutes after 1 am, Eastern Standard Time, early Sunday, February 6.