Latest / DarkHorse Podcast / The Truth About Real ID: Twila Brase, RN, PHN on DarkHorse

Transcript

The Truth About Real ID: Twila Brase, RN, PHN on DarkHorse · DarkHorse Podcast

• 0:00
  Hey folks, welcome to the DarkHorse podcast Inside Rail.
• 0:05
  This is going to be a special one, folks.
• 0:06
  This is a podcast about time travel and we are sitting in 1963.
• 0:12
  Actually, that's not true. We are sitting in 2025. I am with Twila Braves, who I met only yesterday. And this is the very rare instance where somebody has convinced me that they have something of such profound importance that I need to put it on immediately. So Twila, welcome to DarkHorse.
• 0:31
  I am very glad to be here. Thanks, Bret.
• 0:35
  I'm glad to have you here.
• 0:38
  Your organization has a kind of cumbersome name. Would you remind me of what it is?
• 0:42
  Yes, it's Citizens Council for Health Freedom.
• 0:46
  Citizens Council for Health Freedom. So you and I are both part of the health freedom movement. But the thing you convinced me of yesterday is that there was something about the real ID movement or initiative that I was not paying attention to. Real ID, for those of you who've done any air travel of late, is an upgraded ID that carries special governmental information that is now ostensibly required for air travel. Now, when I heard that real ID was going to be required, my thought was, I don't like the sound of that, but I have the feeling this is not a battle worth investing in because I've already surrendered so much information that this doesn't really change my position as a citizen interested in, for example, privacy. You convinced me yesterday that I'd missed something. What have I missed? This episode of The Inside Rail is sponsored by Caraway, which makes high quality, non-toxic cookware and bakeware. On Dark Horse, we have talked at length about how modern life puts our health at risk, including exposures to agricultural chemicals like atrazine and glyphosate, fluoride in our water, food dyes, seed oils and the hazards of nonstick coatings on cookware and bakeware. In our house, we threw out all of the Teflon decades ago. Teflon is toxic. A single scratch on Teflon cookware can release over 9000 microplastic particles, none of which you should be ingesting, many of which you will if you cook with Teflon. Over 70 percent of cookware in the United States is made with Teflon and 97 percent of Americans have toxic chemicals from nonstick cookware in their blood. When you cook with Teflon, it only takes two and a half minutes for a pan to get hot enough to start releasing toxins. Enter Caraway. Caraway kitchenware is crafted with sustainable, non-toxic materials like FSC certified birch wood, premium stainless steel, naturally slick ceramic and more to help you create a safer, healthier home. Caraway makes several lines of non-toxic cookware and bakeware.
• 2:48
  Our favorites are their stainless steel line and their enameled cast iron. All of Caraway's products are free from forever chemicals and their new enameled cast iron is offered in six stylish and beautiful colors. These pots are strong and highly scratch resistant. The last generations. We use enameled cast iron pots to braise large cuts of meat, cook stews and soups and even roast chicken sometimes because one of the great advantages of enameled cast iron is its uniform heat retention. Easy to use and beautiful too. You can't go wrong. There is no better time to make a healthy swap to Caraway. Our favorite cookware set will save you $150 versus buying the items individually. Plus, if you visit carawayhome.com slash DarkHorse 10, you can take an additional 10 percent off your next purchase. This deal is exclusive for our listeners. So visit carawayhome.com slash DarkHorse 10 or use the code DarkHorse 10 at checkout.
• 3:38
  Caraway non-toxic cookware made modern.
• 3:42
  You have missed that. This is a federal ID for a national surveillance system that it's not just a car. It's not just a driver's license that has a star on it or just a state ID that has a star on it. It has a much bigger agenda behind it. The government has a much bigger agenda behind it. And most people don't understand what that agenda is.
• 4:07
  OK, so you did alert me to the idea that this had sort of it had been amorphous in my mind that because you were upgrading your state license, it had not fully clicked for me that this was a major transition into a federal ID.(...) But even then, I didn't get a real ID because I travel with a passport and a passport card and those things function. So have I not already surrendered to a federal system that is equally dangerous to me?
• 4:39
  So I think, you know, when people ask me that kind of a question, one thing that I remind them of is the fact that the passport and the passport card have a very specific purpose. They identify you as a citizen to leave the country and to come into the country. Now, the fact that you've been using it to fly is negligible as to what that actually means.(...) You certainly gave up some information to have that passport, but that has a very specific purpose. Imagine what we're really creating here with the real ID is an internal passport where you have to fly amongst the states and you have to have the special federal ID to fly amongst the states. But it gets much bigger than that because when you look at what the law says, the law says that you're going to need a federal ID or the real ID for access to federal buildings, for access to nuclear facilities, which most people won't need. Right. But then for access to commercial flight. But then it adds these additional words that say, and for any other purposes that the secretary of Homeland Security shall determine. So unilaterally, the secretary for Homeland Security, which today is Kristi Noem, but tomorrow could be anybody. Right. And in any future administration, they can just tack on new restrictions to access, new restrictions to travel according to whether or not you have the real ID.
• 6:06
  Now, this is where you've gotten my attention because as a longtime warrior in the medical freedom movement, I've seen this trick before.
• 6:17
  The fact that the World Health Organization sought to allow its director general to define an emergency that would then enable him to override national sovereignty and dictate the requirement for, let's say, lockdowns or medical treatments was absolutely alarming. So just the general matter, we can say one of the ways that powerful forces that find our constitutional rights galling to circumvent them is to create an amorphous category to find in advance that somebody recognizing an emergency is able to therefore dictate X, Y or Z. That's the way it's done. And because there is no emergency at the point that these things are passed, most people don't feel a sense of alarm at the moment that the what has been described by William Binney as turnkey totalitarian state gets another piece of its architecture built.
• 7:15
  We don't register it as important. At the point the key is turned, it's too late to do anything about it. And so I do have the sense now that if somebody is going to be able to define an emergency at their own discretion and trigger the use of, this is the other thing about the medical freedom movement, at the point that we started talking about vaccine passports, I was very alarmed because it was an abuse of that metaphor. The idea that this is just like a passport. Well, I'm not passing between courts. I'm passing between states or I'm entering a restaurant and you have taken it is necessary. Maybe it's a necessary evil that countries need to be able to carefully monitor who's coming in and out. But most of us would agree that that is an essential function. That is not the case with a restaurant or if I'm going from California to Oregon. So, you know, they've they've put it in my blind spot.
• 8:14
  I've already accepted that something like a passport is necessary and they've decided, well, if you think that's OK, then we're just going to call this a passport in the same way that they called gene therapy a vaccine in order to hide it in our blind spots.(...) So am I correctly understanding what's happening?
• 8:30
  Yes. And I think, you know, if you look at how they could decide to expand it, right. And it's it's interesting to it's not just required uses. What it means is restricted access unless you have the card. Right. So the additional restricted accesses that they could have is access to medical care. Right. Or it could become a vaccine passport. And then if you don't have it and you can't show that you have had the vaccines that they think you should have, you don't get access to the service. But there are other things like access to medical care, access to having a gun, access to getting married, access to going to college. You know, you name it because the secretary of Homeland Security has already said in a rule that they do not believe they have to go back to the president or to Congress to expand those required uses or those additional restricted access.
• 9:20
  Yes. And I think those of us who were covid dissidents know all too well where this goes, which is they will claim that some of us are putting the nation, putting other vulnerable people in jeopardy. And that is why we are no longer entitled to our rights.
• 9:40
  Now, of course, in a legal sense, that's a non sequitur and a proper court would spot it as such. But if you've already built the architecture and then you're in the midst of an emergency and it takes you two years to get a court to even hear the case, then in the meantime, this is being used to exclude people who are trying to do the right thing from utilizing the various features of civilization that they're actually entitled to use. So it is a potentially very powerful mechanism for bringing people in line. And in line is not our allegiance to each other. It's some external authority defining what we are allowed to say to each other, what kinds of medical treatments we have to accept.
• 10:28
  It's virtually anything that they should wish to force us to do. And that is, in fact, very frightening.
• 10:34
  Well, I think when you said that thing about turnkey, right, and then it's too late. So it's really important if you look at the history of this. So this comes out in 2005 and we've got an entire history at our special website, RefuseRealID.org.
• 10:49
  RefuseRealID.org.
• 10:51
  That's correct. And so it's an entire little history. It's one page, but it really shows what happened. But from the get go, as soon as the first rule came out and the state legislators saw what was happening, they wrote laws. So there's about 30 states that either wrote laws or passed resolutions opposing the real ID. And so they said no, because they said this usurps our authority as state legislatures over driving and over identification. And you, the federal government, don't have a right to interfere and intervene in this part of our country. Right. But then,(...) well, there's two things. There's something that was happening secretly when we didn't know it until more recently. But in 2015, President Obama issued this call basically saying that if you don't have a real ID by 2016, you won't be able to fly. Now, that could have happened way back in 2005 when it was first enacted, when Lamar Alexander actually said this is a national identification card. And we've never done this in America before.
• 11:53
  And I don't know that we should because we haven't had any public debate. Right.
• 11:56
  So he agreed. It was.
• 12:00
  But in. So that clarion call could have happened in 2005, but it didn't. It happened 10 years later. And that's the first time the press picked up on that claim. And they fan those flames all across the United States to the point that constituents of state legislators called them in panic that they wouldn't be able to go see their grandchildren.
• 12:20
  They wouldn't be able to go to their winter home. They wouldn't be able to fly to Europe, you know, whatever it was.
• 12:24
  Right. And then legislators caved over the next three years. They passed state laws conforming with real ID and agreeing that we will do whatever the federal government wants us to do with the state driver's license. We will federalize it and put it in federal control.
• 12:42
  All right. Now, I think we should probably go through some of the concerns that people will have and some of the reasons that people would too easily dismiss this issue. If you have, let's say, a passport card, have you already given up the rights that you give up with the real ID or am I by using my passport card as a real ID in order to get through a TSA checkpoint? Am I protecting myself in some meaningful way?
• 13:16
  So first of all, there's only one real ID as it were. And that's the state driver's license that has been federalized with the star on it. And so if your listeners are pulling out their identification cards with their driver's licenses, they will know immediately whether it's a real ID because it has a star or in Washington state, it has a flag. But that's the only one. Everybody else is a star. And so it's not a real ID, but it's real ID compatible, the passport and the passport card. But you have not given up your rights. It's not like it's not like because you have a passport, you know, what's the big deal with real ID? I've given up all that data. You have to understand it's not the same data. And in addition to that, it's not the same purpose. The real ID is about becoming an internal passport. And you have to look beyond whatever data that you've given up and just say, what's the real purpose here? The real purpose here is to have an internal passport. But I think it's also important to know how it's going to work, because I like to say this is a federal ID for a biometric controlled national passport. And it's a federal surveillance system. So what a lot of people don't understand, they look at this card in their hand and they just say, well, this is just a state driver's license with a star. But you have to see where it's going to go. So the state DMV's have testified in their their organization.
• 14:39
  It's called the American Administration of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, AMVA.
• 14:48
  And in December of 2023 to Congress of their plan to digitize the real ID, put it on our phones and have remote real time access to it. And so that means that every time you pull that thing out, you would ping the government. And so what we're really building here is the potential or the framework or the foundation for a social credit system, which we saw happening during Covid in China and how that surveillance system worked.
• 15:17
  So at the point that this stops being a card and starts being an app on your phone, then the true danger of it becomes clear that this, in fact, becomes a mechanism to track where you go, who you interact with. It becomes an opportunity to debank you if you engage in wrong think. Really, the the opportunity for abuse is almost endless and especially in an era where we are watching cash transactions become ever less common. We are all being trained to utilize, you know, cards or whatever the technology is in the phone that allows you to pay with that. The immediacy with which you can become effectively unpersoned is profound. And what if you just simply because you and I know the Covid story, well, if we just simply rerun that history with this new technology in place, then there's just simply a question about how we would have succeeded in forcing the information that we now have into public view if suddenly we were unable to spend money because we had, you know, angered the executive branch.
• 16:42
  Right. We need our rights to critique the behavior of our government. And if our government's in a position to upend our ability to live, if we start doing that, then we won't be able to do it anymore. Right.
• 16:54
  That could hardly be more frightening.
• 16:56
  Well, yes. And I think, you know, the thing is with remote real time control and access, everything is like shut off for I.D. So everything you can imagine that you even use your I.D. for today, you suddenly wouldn't have an I.D. You know, how would you prove you were you?
• 17:12
  You could pull out some other car, but they might not accept it. The other thing I think is just amazingly an amazing violation that people are not thinking about. And it's happening every day in the airport.
• 17:23
  It's the whole thing of biometrics. So they have claimed a right to collect and to catalog the coordinates of your body for their control. That's what this is.
• 17:36
  So the real I.D. rule says there has to be a biometric photo, but then they open it up to the possibility of other biometrics. And already Oklahoma, I have heard, has included a thumbprint. So they have not only a biometric photo, but a biometric thumbprint. And so this is surely a terrible violation of the Fourth Amendment, where they have claimed that your body and the coordinates of your body are theirs. The geometry of your body is theirs to catalog, you know, and use and track.
• 18:09
  Now, of course, I've passed through many airports, to be honest with you, although every time I see one of these things where they take your photo and it says, we delete your photo as soon as you've passed through. My sense is, yeah, I bet they do delete most of them, but I bet there's an exception for people that they're concerned about. I don't know where that exception is going to live, but I don't really trust that they delete it. On the other hand, my sense is I'm walking through an airport. I've surrendered to all of the surveillance that they are engaged in. And my resisting that one photo probably doesn't make any difference. But what you're telling me is now making me rethink that. Should I be opting out the same way I opt out from their millimeter wave machine?
• 18:58
  Yeah, so several things. I do believe that even though they say they're deleting it, I believe they are training their systems in biometrics. Right. And for the people who have the real idea, they're comparing what it says on the real idea compared to that photo in front of them. And when I was in Newark, that's the first time that I have seen lights, lights that shine on your face. Because they really,(...) Idemia is the company that is doing this with the TSA. And a lot of people have never even heard that word, but you just look around. Idemia is doing TSA pre-check. They are the ones who are running the cameras at the security checkpoints. And all they want to do is augmented authentication. They want to bring the entire world, I believe, to augmented authentication, which means you never have to have a paper. They will consider you your ID because they're going to have your face.
• 19:48
  They're going to have your palm print.
• 19:50
  They're going to have your thumbprint.
• 19:51
  They're going to have your gait. How do you walk? Right. And their cameras, you know, when you go on to Idemia's website, you can see that they're looking from far away and they are watching you. And I have heard that in foreign airports before you even get close to the camera. Your name pops up.
• 20:10
  Right. Actually, you know, I have had roughly that experience with global entry. So global entry is a program that you can sign up for that allows you to streamline your reentry to the U.S. You go into a special line, it's shorter. It's now been automated. There are kiosks. And what it was, you used to go and take your passport and scan your passport and it would take your photo.
• 20:40
  (...) And the current experience is you don't even get to that stage. It spots you and it says you're free. And it's very jarring because you feel like I know that there's something I'm supposed to do and it's been done somewhere in the process of my approaching that box. And so anyway, one can imagine some very dystopian scenarios here. And now that I think about it, the promise to delete the photo is actually not much of a promise at all. If what they've done is they've taken a bunch of data about your features and that gets recorded. So what they delete the photo, right? The photo, they don't need it because what they've done is they've recorded data from it, which means that they have a progression. You know, if you pass through airports at some regularity, not only do they have a static idea of what you looked like, but they have an idea of how your look is changing. They if you're a guy and you change your facial hair, they have a sense about the spectrum of different ways that you can look. And the idea that this is tied to a cryptic control mechanism where the convenience, you know, I think we all at one level can appreciate not having to take a bunch of objects with us. On the other hand, if what you've signed up for is a thing that can be turned off remotely, if you, you know, do things that are considered threatening by those with power, then what you've traded for convenience is someone else's control over you should they decide to exert it.
• 22:15
  Right. And I think that the other thing that's happening at the airport is that they are desensitizing people to biometric control, right? I just see person after person just goes right through those and they just line up with that camera like it's no big deal. Lots of them don't even see the opt out sign.
• 22:32
  They made them really little, but they have made them bigger. But a lot of people aren't reading.(...) The other thing that happens is now there are new cameras that are at the jet way, right?
• 22:40
  So you have the security checkpoint, but then there are now new cameras at the jet way. So before you actually get on the plane, I feel like those are mostly when you go overseas, maybe to Hawaii. And those signs are different. They say that they send the photo to Customs and Border Patrol and then they delete it. And then like the sixth paragraph, it says, if you want to opt out, you know, say that you can opt out. I think the really important thing right now is how the angst that has happened for some people at the congressional level. So there is a bipartisan bill that is called the Travelers Patient Private not Patient Privacy Act Travelers Privacy Protection Act. And that is bipartisan. It's got Democrats and it's got Republicans. And I think there is some sense that it might happen. It will shut down those cameras in the airport or it will say that you really have to give people a much bigger notice about what's going on here.
• 23:37
  Now,(...) a thought that occurs to me on hearing this is something I've thought from many other topics of late, which is that our founding documents are truly brilliant in terms of their recognition of what our rights are. But they are inadequate to protecting those rights in a modern world that the founders could not have envisioned.(...) And this strikes me as fitting exactly into that category.
• 24:14
  So is there what I don't like about our modern predicament is that those who are seeking to build this turnkey totalitarian system, sometimes we spot them and sometimes we upend their plans and then they morph. So we had a situation where the World Health Organization was seeking all sorts of draconian powers and we spotted them early enough and we derailed it and they defanged the international health regulations that they were seeking to pass. But then the very same powers showed up being sought at the UN. And so there's a question about am I to spend the rest of my life trying to ferret out where they're trying to build this control structure and having to go and expose it again and again? Because there's going to be there's going to come a point, even if we do always spot the attempts, fatigue is going to prevent people from continuing this fight. So the remedy for that is obviously an agreement on what our rights are that is up to date enough to deal with the technological ramifications for those rights.
• 25:31
  Do you have is there thinking on the question of what our rights what rights need to be stated and how they need to be lodged in order that we can fight this battle once rather than innumerable times?
• 25:46
  Well, you know, the Fourth Amendment about the the right to the security of your body or affects your homes and your papers, right, is really meant to cover all of that. But my sense of this is that if you don't have legislators, lawmakers who actually follow the Constitution, believe the Constitution and don't instead follow perhaps their their donors wishes because really the health plans, the data industry are really very huge and are significant donors. And if they're not really thinking about it or they're just dismissing it, right, then then it's very difficult for us to have the kind of protections that we need for us to actually lay out each of those things may or may not be difficult. Plus, what if we miss something for the next thing that you and I cannot think about or the next generation? We have no idea what's going to pop up. And I think, you know, in some ways, the Fourth Amendment was made broad enough so that you would know that your rights are protected against the federal government. So it's against the federal government. And that's one of the reasons that we have been talking with the state AGs because they are supposed to protect the states against an encroaching federal government.(...) So we've just started a conversation with them. I hope that that will go somewhere. But in the meantime, we look at the power of the people to actually stop this initiative because if people choose in 45 states, you have a choice not to have a real idea and you can just get a passport or passport card.
• 27:21
  If people choose to take the trajectory in the opposite direction, then it's very difficult for them to impose it. Now they're kind of imposing it surreptitiously. Right. You go to the DMV. They don't even tell you you have a choice.
• 27:35
  So do you at the DMV?
• 27:37
  You do in 45 states. You have a choice.
• 27:40
  But a lot of times they won't tell you.
• 27:42
  They'll just give you the real idea.
• 27:44
  Right. Because they think you have to actively ask for the other, which most people will not know.
• 27:48
  That's happening around the country. So we heard from somebody in California, for instance, who got back to us and said it was easy peasy. Those were her words. Interesting. Yeah.
• 27:57
  So I will say the Fourth Amendment is a perfect example of a place where the founders had it right, in my opinion. But technology has now rendered their attempt inadequate because I mean, I'm not a legal scholar. I'm a biologist. But my understanding is that courts have determined that your right to privacy is only applicable where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So in other words, there's a distinction between the government looking through your papers in your house where they would need probable cause and the government looking through papers in your trash where you've taken it to the curb.
• 28:40
  Right. So in that world, the do you have an expectation of privacy passing through an airport? I feel virtually certain a court would say no. On the other hand, do I have a right not to have my biometric data technologically recorded and banked for future purposes unknown that just outstrips anything the founders would have bothered to think about? They didn't know what a camera was.(...) So in any case, we're living in a brave new world and the authoritarians are taking advantage of the ambiguity created here.
• 29:21
  And they're also taking advantage of our intuitive misunderstandings of our own rights. So Bobby Kennedy, of course, has pointed out many times that the founders knew very well what an epidemic was, was something they were intimately familiar with. And yet they did not create an exception to your constitutional protections for the purposes of an epidemic. That tells us your constitutional rights are supposed to remain intact. But most people have the sense that, well, in an emergency, your rights don't persist, which, of course, creates an incentive to produce emergencies or the impression of an emergency.
• 30:02
  So we as citizens have to become better at knowing what our rights are, knowing why there are no exceptions for these things. And we also have to figure out where those rights need to be augmented with something like a digital bill of rights that covers not only technologies that currently exist or are foreseeable, but technologies that might arise in the future that we literally can't imagine from here.
• 30:29
  So I just look at what happened with medical privacy, right? So there's a lot of your listeners who believe that HIPAA protects their medical privacy, right?
• 30:38
  But it doesn't. It does the exact opposite. It actually opened up medical records. Right. And when you talk about where do you have an expectation of privacy, well, you have an expectation of privacy in the exam room and in the hospital and in the surgical suite. And I'm a nurse. And so I've taken care of lots of patients in the emergency room and you have an expectation. We do the very best to protect your privacy. But since HIPAA passed, you don't have any privacy anymore. And so when people sign that form, they think that they're signing a form that says that my information is between me and my doctor.
• 31:13
  And the only form that they're signing is a form that says, I have read or I have understood or I have received. The HIPAA notice of privacy practices. But if you look at the HIPAA notice of privacy practices, it will show all the places that your data can be shared without your consent. So this is like this enormous deliberate deception. And this is something that Congress did. And in Minnesota, we actually have the only law that is stronger than HIPAA. HIPAA is not strong at all, right? But we actually have a real state medical privacy law.
• 31:46
  And because HIPAA says the state law rules, if it's stronger. We in Minnesota actually have a stronger state law, but everybody else in the country doesn't.
• 31:55
  And they think that they're protected and they're not at all.
• 31:58
  Interesting. That reminds me a little bit of what happened with corporate personhood,(...) where the founders actually granted corporate personhood.
• 32:10
  But their purpose in doing it was that we could constrain corporations as if they were people. They could be held to a contract. It was not designed to give them human rights, which is an absurdity, a right to free speech.
• 32:24
  That was never the intent.
• 32:27
  And so anyway, the point is that things been turned on its head. But if you say, well, actually, corporate personhood goes back to the 18th century, it sounds like, oh, well, OK. I guess wise people knew what they were doing. But yeah, we have a right to privacy. And HIPAA turns out to be the opposite, the invalidation of that right. But we're not paying close enough attention to no.
• 32:49
  No. And then when they mandated that your medical records be digitized and every doctor in every hospital has to have a government certified version of the electronic health record or they will get paid less by Medicare. And people don't understand this, right? And so they took away your privacy rights and then they digitized all your data and then they created the health exchange to exchange your data all around the country without your consent.
• 33:17
  So does that mean, for example, that if I show up at a new doctor now that the so-called pandemic is over, that they know that I didn't take a shot?
• 33:28
  They might they may or may not know that, depending on how it's registered in the record and whether they're part of the health exchange. The health exchange, I think, is 34 states have have health plans, clinics, hospitals, government agencies all participating. Right. And so it really depends. But they know it through the the immunization registries in every state, whether or not you have received or not, because it would have to be listed in there if it has been given to you.
• 33:58
  Hmm. All right. Well, that in part puts some flesh on the bones of why so many people that I know are now quite frightened about going to the doctor.
• 34:08
  Yes, both because we now know that the medical system is perfectly capable of steering you into terrible harm, but also because we fear, you know, if we challenged the medical establishment when it told us that those mRNA shots were safe and effective, then understandably, the doctors are a little bit back on their heels about having recommended these things and then it turning out that actually a great many people were grievously injured. So there are a lot of reasons to be worried about the doctor. Them knowing about your past dissident status is maybe should be high on that list.
• 34:53
  Well, if you don't mind me putting a little plug in for my book, it's called Big Brother in the exam room, the Dangerous Truth about electronic health records. And it really talks about the whole history of HIPAA, the electronic health record mandate and how it's controlling the doctors in the exam room.
• 35:09
  So when you think about what happened during covid, right, when they were giving remdesivir and they were putting people on ventilators, that's what was available to them in the electronic health record. Ivermectin was often not available anywhere. And when they and when they really got perturbed at doctors who were using it, they just took it out of the hospital. Right. But everything that the doctor does today is registered and recorded. And so the doctor is paid according to compliance.
• 35:38
  And so I think, you know, there are there are lots of reasons why people are afraid of the exam room today. But I did in that book create a little section on real ID, even though it had sat there for some time, just kind of silently doing nothing. I wanted people to know that I thought this would become a unique patient identifier, which was part of part of HIPAA. But we have worked with Rand Paul's office to stop the unique patient identifier, which would take everything that happens in the exam room, everything that happens in the hospital and tie together under one number. And I do believe that the real ID will become that number if people do not stop it. Help us to stop it.
• 36:20
  Yes. I would encourage people to just simply rethink what took place during the phony emergency. And I think Covid was a real disease, but the phony emergency that was created around the spread of Covid.
• 36:36
  All of the aggressive efforts to portray those of us who would not take the vaccine, who were simply exercising our right to informed consent and saying this is this is not your right to insist that I take this. But we were demonized as, you know, it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We were told and the vulnerable were going to die because of our behavior. So at the moment that people, doctors and nurses are in a position to interface with a system that dictates how free you are and they see you as actually a menace, putting other people in mortal jeopardy. There's no question in my mind that those those switches would be flipped. And there really isn't any limit to how much of an obstacle to living that they can create once you've allowed your life to be moved into this discretionary toolkit.
• 37:39
  Well, and imagine if real ID would become this tracking number and this surveillance number, which I think is what the plan is. Right. So that everything that you do in every place that you go, I can just kind of imagine those who want to keep us in the 15 minute cities. We'll be able to see when we get outside the 15 minutes and we saw that with covid, right? They would they actually they contracted to get the data from all these different cell phones so they could see where people were gathering. Right. And so I can just imagine another administration who would want to keep you in your 15 minutes cities or they might want to tax you for your carbon use if you spend too much time, you know, going different places or going out or, you know, whatever.
• 38:20
  Right. Because I mean, the excuse will be used. You're putting planet Earth in jeopardy. Correct. So why are you entitled to spend your money or to, you know, read particular books or whatever it is they should want to control?
• 38:30
  Well, it's been very frustrating with Secretary Kristi Noem, because a lot of people don't realize that there was a rule that came out on real ID in October and it was a phased in enforcement rule.
• 38:43
  So for two years, they're going to phase in enforcement. It totally didn't start on May 7th. And yet on April 11th, she told the world that if you arrive at the airport without a real ID, you will not be able to travel. And then on May 6th, which was the day before the deadline, she told Congress, oh, no, no, we will let people travel. Well, it just may be a few more steps of security. And I just found an Instagram that she did on May 7th where she said, if you come without a real ID, you won't be able to fly. So and then knowing that there's two years before final enforcement on May 5th, 2027. And the whole reason that they have this two year delay is because they were afraid of what would happen at the airport. I've read the entire rule.
• 39:30
  That's what they're afraid of. Right. And yet the whole push was to get people to get the real ID and to use fear to get them to do it before May 7th.
• 39:39
  OK, so they've lied to us and they've told us that we will lose a right. That this is so it makes it feel like the ship has already sailed. Right. But I think what I'm understanding from you is that actually we could still defeat this. We don't have to reverse it. But the fact is, it is not the done deal that we imagine it is.
• 39:56
  That's correct.
• 39:57
  So what should we be doing?
• 39:59
  So the very best thing for everybody to do is if you don't have a real ID, don't get a real ID. If you do have a real ID, get rid of the real ID. There are 45 states that give you an option. The only ones that don't are Texas, Georgia, Florida, Wyoming and Mississippi.(...) Every other state gives you the option to have a state driver's license rather than a federal ID. And so and then you should tell your state legislators to extract your state from real ID. And in very happy news, I can say that there are legislators in eight states that are doing legislation to do that or to make sure that you always have the choice of not having a real ID. So there are states doing that. And then, of course, tell President Trump, I don't know what he's hearing from Christine Ohm. I don't know what he actually understands about this.
• 40:52
  We sent a letter to President Trump and we got a letter back from the TSA that said that the Trump administration is going to be a real ID. And asked me to respond to this from the TSA.
• 41:04
  So we put it up on social media, our corrections to the TSA's comments. And so we've redlined the TSA letter and we put it up on social media.
• 41:14
  And and so I don't know that Trump actually knows what's going on here. I'm not I'm not certain.
• 41:19
  My guess is he probably doesn't. And I would say that that's actually maybe a hopeful thing, because if we can get the information to him and he understands the analysis, the analogy between what he correctly did with the World Health Organization, pulling the U.S. out of it in order to protect us from these draconian moves, that he would be interested in seeing the same thing here.
• 41:42
  Interesting that Texas is on the list of states that requires a real ID. That's possibly something that those of you who live in Texas might try to persuade your governor and your legislators to fix that situation.
• 41:57
  Florida too, right? DeSantis, right?
• 41:59
  Florida too. I didn't I missed that you had said that.
• 42:03
  But all right. So the key here is don't get a real ID, get a state ID.
• 42:10
  Don't allow yourself to be passively dragged into this. Ask the questions.
• 42:14
  (...) I would recommend that a passport card is a good thing to have and that it neutralizes this issue at the airport.
• 42:25
  They don't even mention real ID to you because the passport card serves that function without apparently collecting the extra data.(...) That's so frightening here.
• 42:36
  So and, you know, people have said to me, well, they have all the data, you know, what's the big deal and they have what they need. And I'm like, they don't. And the reason that they're lying and the reason they're exerting pressure is they don't have something that they want and they want everybody in the real ID. So what we need to do is make sure that we don't acquiesce to them and that we turn it backwards. And yes, get a passport, get a passport card so you can sleep at night. Right. So you don't have to worry.
• 43:05
  Right. But don't get a real ID and give up your real ID.
• 43:08
  Excellent. All right.
• 43:11
  Very interesting that they have deceived us into thinking we are farther down this road than we are. Very interesting that this was moving slowly, dormant at several stages and now is on the move again. I think that that is our enemies accidentally telegraphing to us that they know that this has to be done now.
• 43:33
  And well, and there's two things here.
• 43:35
  Forty four percent of all IDs and state driver's licenses are not compliant. So we want to get it up, like I said, to forty six and forty eight and fifty.
• 43:45
  Right. So that's about all the people who are listening to you. Making a different decision. But the other thing is don't wait until renewal. Get it done now because the DMV agents have gone rogue.
• 43:57
  We discovered that they went rogue between when all those 30 states said no or 30 some states said no. And then Obama issued that call during that time, even though it was against the law to conform or come anywhere close to real ID. There was a tiny little real ID office in the Homeland Security that decided to work directly with DMV's. So the DMV's were taking money behind the backs of their governors, behind the backs of their legislators, and they were moving their state toward compliance with real ID without telling anybody about it. So the DMV's are probably going to try to shut down your ability to not have a real ID.
• 44:35
  And you need to do this as quickly as possible. That's another reason to tell your state legislators that you want to get out of the real ID system.
• 44:43
  All right. Did you all get that? What you want to do is not wait for renewal. You want to get a state driver's license that is not a real ID. Get yourself passport and or passport card and persuade your states to exert their rightful constitutionally guaranteed right to protect you from this federal encouragement. Correct. All right. That makes a lot of sense.
• 45:08
  And our information on this is at RefuseRealID.org.
• 45:13
  RefuseRealID.org.(...) TwilabRays, it's been a pleasure talking to you. It's been frightening to hear what you have to say.
• 45:23
  But I'm very glad that there is still time for us to do something about this. I want you to keep doing what you're doing and spread the word.
• 45:31
  And I'll try to help.
• 45:33
  I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
• 45:34
  All right. Thanks, everybody.