(Editor's note: U.S. Senator Rand Paul [R-Kentucky] released the following letter to his fellow Senators on February 15.)

James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched.

He condemned these general warrants as "the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book." Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they "placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges - not soldiers or policemen - would issue warrants. Otis' battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.

My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge's warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent - a National Security Letter ("NSL").

I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge's warrant.

How's this for a conspiracy theory? A global agenda, unveiled in 1992 during the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development (UNCED, also known as the Rio Earth Summit), that is being progressively implemented in every level of government in America through a United Nations (UN) initiative called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Agenda 21, as it is referred to in the UN's own documentation (UN.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21), is "a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts [sic] on the environment."

Its purpose: to centrally own and control the planet's resources under the guise of "smart planning" and "sustainable development." In fact, for most UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Agenda 21 is synonymous with sustainable development.

The two primary goals of Agenda 21 are to (1) decrease the world population to "sustainable" levels as a means to effectively control labor, the planet's number-one resource, and (2) eradicate individual property rights via comprehensive land-use planning that dictates land use according to a global master plan that includes control of everything from food to health to energy to security, and the list goes on.

Locally, in Scott County, the slow incremental steps of this globalist agenda are wide open for all to see. On February 3, the Scott County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt the state of Iowa's "Smart Planning Principles" as part of its Comprehensive Plan. The language of such principles sounds laudable on the surface: collaboration, efficiency, diversity, revitalization. Who could not be for these principles?

The sponsor of a bill that contains the Religious Conscience Protection Act, which opponents have dubbed the "Marriage Discrimination Act," says currently "there is no intent" to move the bill forward in the legislature this year.

More than 50 people packed the Iowa House lobbyist lounge this week, largely opposing the proposed legislation. Rabbis and key players on the issue from the Iowa Catholic Conference, One Iowa, and The Family Leader were all there.

"The substance of the bill is important to some Iowans," said Representative Richard Anderson (R-Clarinda). "There are issues with the bill. As I said, I have some issues with the bill. We don't intend to move it forward at this time."

House Study Bill 50 would have provided an exemption for religious corporations and others from any requirement to solemnize a marriage, treat a marriage as valid, or provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for purposes related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage, if doing so would cause the entity to violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

The state's secretary of the Department of Human Services met with a group representing child-care providers last Monday and gave them some bad news. Prepare for $100 million in cuts to child-care programs, Michelle Saddler told the group.

According to a participant in the meeting, Secretary Saddler said the state could freeze intake of new clients, "dramatically" increase parental co-pays, cut rates to providers, and eliminate child care for parents who are in school or employment-related training. The meeting resulted in an urgent alert by Illinois Action for Children imploring supporters to immediately call the governor's office.

The $100-million cut would be for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends June 30. That cut would equal about a third of the child-care program's remaining budget, which comes from both state and federal revenue sources.