The Real ID Card is a National ID (Ron Paul 2005)





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Uploaded on Feb 15, 2009

Political and Religious Foundations of The U.S.A.

US House of Representatives - February 10, 2005) Congressman Ron Paul opposes a National ID. Starting on May 11, 2008, Americans will need a federally approved, "machine readable" ID card.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This material is made available for the purpose of advancing understanding of environmental, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who are interested in studying such information for research and educational purposes.


...With the utmost sincerity and a deep conviction, I am quite confident that this bill, if you vote for it, you will be voting for a national ID card. I know some will argue against that and they say this is voluntary, but it really cannot be voluntary. If a State opts out, nobody is going to accept their driver's license. So this is not voluntary.

As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent a statement around with some points about this bill, said "the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses."

This is nationalization of all identification. It will be the confirmation of the notion that we will be carrying our papers.

As a matter of fact, I think it might be worse than just carrying our papers and showing our papers, because in this bill there are no limitations as to the information that may be placed on this identification card. There are minimum standards, but no maximum limitations.

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can add anything it wants. So if they would like to put on our driver's license that you belong to a pro-gun group, it may well become mandatory, because there may be an administration some day that might like to have that information.

But there is no limitation as far as biometrics and there is no limitation as far as radio frequency identification. That technology is already available and being used on our passports. This means that you do not have to show your papers. All you have to do is walk by somebody that has a radio frequency ability to read your passport or read your driver's license. There is no limitation as to what they can put on these documents.

This bill also allows the definition of "terrorism" to be re-defined. There are no limitations.

In many ways I understand how well intentioned this is, but to me it is sort of like the gun issue. Conservatives always know that you do not register guns, that is just terrible, because the criminals will not register their guns. But what are we doing with this bill? We are registering all the American people, and your goal is to register the criminals and the thugs and the terrorists.

Well, why does a terrorist need a driver's license? They can just steal a car or steal an airplane or steal a bus or whatever they want to do. So you are registering all the American people because you are looking for a terrorist, and all the terrorist is going to do is avoid the law. But we all, the American people, will have to obey the law. If we do not, we go to prison.

(End Transcript)

Jonathan Mayhew, the prophet of the American Revolution said,
"No civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God.... All commands running counter to the declared will of the Supreme Legislator of heaven and earth are null and void, and therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime."
"From whence it follows, that as soon as the prince sets himself up above law, he loses the king in the tyrant. He does, to all intents and purposes, unking himself by acting out of and beyond that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in; and in such cases he has no more right to be obeyed than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission." (A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers, Jonathan Mayhew, 1750, pp. 37, 38, 45)

  • Category

  • License

    • Standard YouTube License


When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...