(Credit: Gage Skidmore)

In reaction to the scandal that the U.S. Justice Department seized the phone records of Associated Press journalists, a small bipartisan group of legislators is attempting to rein in some of the excesses of the Executive Branch.

Republican Reps. Justin Amash and Mick Mulvaney as well as Democratic Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Jared Polis are all co-sponsors of the Telephone Records Protection Act. Introduced last Thursday, the main aim of the bill is to require the government to obtain a court order before seizing phone records.

According to the press release:

“HR 2014, the Telephone Records Protection Act, requires court approval when the government demands telephone records from service providers. . . .

“The Justice Department’s seizure of the AP’s phone records – likely without the sign-off of a single judge – raises serious First and Fourth Amendment concerns. . . .

“The Telephone Records Protection Act strikes 18 USC § 2703(c)(2)(C), which includes telephone records on the list of basic subscriber information that can be accessed by administrative subpoena. If enacted, the bill would require the government to state ‘specific and articulable facts’ that can prove to a court that the information sought is ‘relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

This legislation came forth even before the revelation that journalist James Rosen was targeted under the auspices of the Espionage Act of 1917, a World War I era law. The Fox News chief Washington correspondent, Rosen’s private e-mails were read after he reported information relayed to him by former State Department official Stephen Kim, who himself is under indictment under the Espionage Act. Rosen is not charged, but he was listed as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator.”

When President Obama entered office, he promised an open and transparent administration. However, the Obama administration has compiled a long record of prosecuting whistleblowers.

Columnist Glenn Greenwald, a long-time liberal critic of the president, asserted that the recently-revealed actions of the administration represent an attack on the freedom of the press itself:

“The Obama Justice Department has prosecuted more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined – in fact, double the number of all such prior prosecutions. But as last week’s controversy of the DOJ’s pursuit of the phone records of AP reporters illustrated, this obsessive fixation in defense of secrecy also targets, and severely damages, journalists specifically and the newsgathering process in general.”

Last week, Obama adviser David Axelrod inadvertently provided fodder for his conservative critics when he told MSNBC, “Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast.”

At the Daily Caller, W. James Antle suggests the problem is that a government that is too big is bound to overreach:

“When we give the federal government the power to look at our private financial transactions, listen to our phone calls and regulate political speech, we shouldn’t be surprised when those powers are abused. Neither should we be surprised when those powers expand, with the government even inserting itself into Americans’ prayers.”

It remains to be seen how far the Telephone Records Protection Act will go in Congress. However, it does emerge at a time when partisans on both sides are expressing discomfort with the secrecy of the Obama administration. It also comes at a time when more of the American people are paying attention to what surveillance powers the government claims.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

(Credit: Kwame Raoul Twitter page)

With a deadline approaching in the Illinois concealed carry debate, legislation was introduced in the State Senate late last week. However, each side in the gun debate continues to show signs of intransigence.

Sponsored by Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, a vote was expected on Friday, but was delayed. A vote could come on Monday.

Raoul’s legislation would give Chicago police the authority to award permits with the Illinois State Police making the judgments everywhere else. It is an attempt to harmonize the disparate gun factions within the state.

Sen. Dan Kotowski, another Chicago Democrat, also introduced legislation to ban the sale of magazines able to fire more than ten rounds. Governor Pat Quinn has long sought an assault weapons ban, but so far the ban on high-capacity magazines is the only such ban to emerge.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, the Democrat who introduced a previously-defeated “shall issue” bill, says Raoul’s bill will never pass the House.

On Monday, the Senate is also expected to hear testimony from parents of victims from the Newtown, Connecticut shooting late last year. Senate President John Cullerton said:

“I want these three parents [to] come down to Springfield, Illinois, and I want them to make some of the senators very uncomfortable and that’s what’s going to make a difference.”

Meanwhile, Springfield Alderman Tim Griffin is encouraging home-rule legislation in communities of 25,000 or more. In Griffin’s proposal, out-of-state permits would be recognized in Springfield. Also, any business can opt out of allowing concealed weapons by registering online and displaying a sign outside the business specifying it.

The biggest objection to home-rule proposals is that they do not provide uniform regulations, thus creating a question about what happens when a concealed carry user crosses into another jurisdiction. Home-rule legislation would be regulations in addition to any that get passed in Springfield. They can also, theoretically, be more restrictive.

Phelps, who said his previously-defeated “shall issue” law would have been the country’s most restrictive, opposes this avenue:

“There should be one, uniform law statewide . . . because if you allow municipalities and counties to do their own ordinances, from town to town to town, that law-abiding gun owner is not going to know between one town and another.”

Last December, a U.S. Federal Appeals Court ruled the concealed carry ban in Illinois was unconstitutional and gave the state six months to pass legislation regulating it.

The legislative session is scheduled to adjourn on May 31. If no legislation enacting regulations on Illinois concealed carry is reached by June 9, uninhibited concealed carry becomes reality in the state.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

Credit: Gage Skidmore

After a week of testimony in Congress about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya last September, Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul suggested that the facility might have been an outpost for running guns to Syria. The attack killed U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three others on September 11, 2012.

Talking to CNN’s Erin Burnett, Paul said:

“I never have quite understood the cover-up – if it was intentional or incompetence. But something went on. I mean, they had talking points that they were trying to make it about a movie when everybody seemed to be on the ground telling them it had nothing to do with a movie. I don’t know if this was for political reasons.

“I’ve always actually suspected, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya, going through Turkey into Syria. In the week preceding this, the New York Times has reported that there was a Turkish ship taking Libyan arms and giving them to Syrians. . . . Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?”

Before he became the U.S ambassador to Libya, Stevens was the deputy chief of mission as well as a special representative to the National Transition Council. When he arrived in Libya as this special representative in early 2011, it was as a liaison to Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. By November 2011, Belhadj was meeting with Free Syrian Army officials in Turkey about providing troops and arms to Syria to train rebels fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Later, a Times of London story, perhaps the one Paul had in mind, reported a Libyan ship carrying weapons arrived in Syria via Benghazi shortly before Stevens’ death.

As Businessinsider.com summarized it: “Ambassador Stevens had only one person – Belhadj – between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.”

To date, the Obama administration has refused to directly arm the Syrian rebels, which include terrorist-designated Jabhat al-Nusra. However, if it is true that Benghazi was a point for shipping weapons to Syria, it may invoke memories of Iran-Contra, a scandal in which President Reagan admitted to selling weapons to Iran.

The charge that America’s Benghazi base was an outpost for covertly moving arms into Syria is only speculation. As an aspect of the incident that has received little coverage, it also remains to be seen whether investigation into this charge will be pursued.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

(Credit: Chicago Tribune)

As the legislative session in Illinois nears its conclusion on May 31, several issues, including gay marriage, remain unresolved in the state. Now, Governor Pat Quinn is directly calling on the Legislature to solve the issue.

A same-sex marriage bill passed the Illinois Senate in February and went to the House. Although Democrats hold a majority in the House as well, the bill has stalled. Supporters believe that they do not yet have the votes needed for passage.

“We’re a little closer. But we’re not yet there. But we’re closer,” said Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris, another Chicago Democrat, has been quiet about the number of votes he has secured. Sixty are needed for passage.

The gay marriage debate has provided a look into the uniqueness, or perhaps the dysfunction, of the state’s politics. Although a predominantly Democratic state, gaining passage of gay marriage has been difficult. Last week, citizens in the downstate East St. Louis area began receiving “robo-calls” from a prominent African-American minister from Chicago. Rev. James Meeks said on the call:

“In my view, same-sex marriage should not be the law of the state of Illinois. . . . Call your representative, Eddie Lee Jackson, and share your view with him.”

Governor Pat Quinn has publicly stated his support for gay marriage in the past and made it a point in his State of the State address this year. At the end of the week, Quinn made known his frustration about the House’s inability to pass the bill when he said, “It’s time to vote:”

“Illinois passing marriage equality into law, I think, sends a great signal to the people of our state and the people of America. So it’s important to Illinois (that) the House of Representatives get going.”

As the Chicago Tribune points out, Quinn’s comments come a day after Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed gay marriage into law and the Minnesota House passed its own gay marriage bill. Quinn’s comments also come after a poll showing the Democratic governor’s approval ratings hovering below thirty percent. Quinn’s term as governor is up after 2014 and he could face a primary challenge from Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a popular figure among Illinois liberals.

With only about three weeks left in the legislative session, the General Assembly will likely be rushed to beat the deadline on a number of issues. In addition to the Illinois gay marriage bill, public pension reform is still on the table as well as what type of concealed carry legislation to pass.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

(Credit: fitsnews.com)

Mark Sanford wins the South Carolina special election and may have just pulled off one of the more remarkable political comebacks in recent memory – certainly the most bizarre. At 54-45, my prediction of a Sanford 51-48 victory was a little tame, but at least my ego remains largely intact! Turn-out, as I said all along, was key. Turn-outs in special elections are notoriously small, but this one blew away the turn-out from the primary in March. The more Republicans who came out actually made Sanford’s win a little anti-climactic.

I’m sure Elizabeth Colbert Busch is kicking herself for not campaigning more aggressively against Sanford. During their debate, I was tempted to compare her strategy to football’s prevent defense and most fans are familiar with the cliche, it prevents you from winning! Trite conventional wisdom strikes again!

On the one hand, as impressive as Sanford’s turnaround is, we should also not read too much into its meaning. Minus the personal scandals, Sanford, a former congressman and former governor would have won in a landslide. Not only that, but this was his old congressional seat in a district that has voted Republican for 30 years. This seat was the Republicans’ to lose and they didn’t lose it. On the other hand, it looked like Sanford totally blew it once the trespassing allegations surfaced and he was down nine in the polls. That becomes the added element of this comeback: it’s really two comebacks.

One of the lessons Republicans can learn from this is that it is possible to return from a personal scandal. However, it needs to be the right circumstances and the right candidate. Sanford really was on his home turf and he ended up sweeping all the counties. He made his campaign about forgiveness, second chances, and whether or not to send a Nancy Pelosi clone to Congress. As fair or unfair as that characterization was, Sanford stayed on message, knew his audience, and definitely outworked an opponent who neither mistepped nor did anything to finish him off.

Liberals gnashing their teeth on Twitter right now may think they can tie Sanford to the larger GOP in an attempt to drag down the whole party as a party of moral reprobates. But unlike Pelosi, Sanford is not in the party leadership nor is he about to be.

When he was in the House before, Sanford was an ally of Ron Paul’s. Paul is gone, but in his place are Reps. Justin Amash and Thomas Massie and old guard Paul companion Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee is still there. Among some others, it was the Paul faction of the GOP that came out to defend Sanford when the NRCC abandoned him. Sanford will be more visible now than he was from 1994-2000, but the face of the party is still Bush, McCain, Romney, and McConnell, not Mark Sanford.

So there is life after a sex scandal for Republicans (and certain Democrats?). When caught in his imbroglio four years ago, I assumed Sanford’s career was over. The presidency, for which Sanford was a rumored candidate at the time, is still a bridge too far. For now, he’s headed to Washington (and court), and possibly to gloat at the rivals who danced on his grave.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

(Credit: fitsnews.com)

It’s just about 4:00 pm Central Time and there are about two hours before the polls close in the South Carolina special election between Mark Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert Busch. It’s been one of the more bizarre races that I can recall, but that may be compounded by the fact that it’s the only race going on right now.

Ordinarily, this would have been a Republican landslide. It’s a heavily Republican district, so even with all of Mark Sanford’s baggage, it’s really just a matter of getting out the vote. Although the former governor trailed by almost double digits two weeks ago, the latest polls show him tied or slightly ahead. We’ll chalk it up to a sharp debate performance a week ago and his tireless campaign.

Over at The Fix, Chris Cillizza points to the “5 Things to Watch.” The most interesting outcome might be the “post-game spin.” If Sanford wins, it’ll be how the Democrats spent so much on a winnable seat only to come away with nothing. Plus, it’ll have Sanford, an otherwise vulnerable Republican, in a safe seat.

If Colbert Busch wins, it’ll probably be the real death knell of Sanford’s career, so the spin will be about how he could lose such a safe Republican seat. However, it’ll also be one of the easier House seats for the Republicans to re-claim in the 2014 midterms.

Also, if Colbert Busch wins, we can probably expect the over-interpretation from all media outlets of a single House special election. Meaning: We’ll be hearing that it’s likely that the Democrats will regain the House in 2014 because of this loss. Rather, if Colbert Busch wins, it will not be due to an especially good campaign – she has campaigned and debated not to lose – but other factors. True, she’s a minor celebrity due to her comedian brother, but she also didn’t make any big mistakes, and she had a uniquely flawed opponent. Tonight’s outcome will have zero bearing on whether the Republicans keep the House.

So, at a little more than two hours before the polls close, I’m predicting a narrow Sanford victory. He’s been successful in nationalizing the race and reminding voters that a Congresswoman Colbert Busch is likely going to be in league with Nancy Pelosi, who has spent big money in the first district. However weird he may be in his personal life, last week’s debate he also showed that he is a formidable candidate, so the fact that he turned this race around shouldn’t be surprising.

This is also Sanford’s (albeit redrawn) former congressional district where he served from 1995-2001. There’s been no gerrymandering on Sanford’s part, so he has been campaigning among his traditional base of support: i.e. among people who have probably voted for him as many as five times before. As such, I’m predicting that the momentum will carry him to victory tonight. But since it’s been a rocky four years, I see it being about 51-48, Sanford.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

(Credit: Chicago Tribune)

Approximately one month separates residents from the deadline that makes Illinois concealed carry a reality. Failure to meet this deadline and enact some form of concealed carry legislation will leave no restrictions in place as the passions on both sides are heating up.

Last December, when Illinois’ ban on concealed weapons was ruled unconstitutional by a US Circuit Court of Appeals, many eyes looked to Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a long-time advocate of gun control and a presumed gubernatorial candidate, to appeal the ruling. Madigan previously had until May 23 to decide to appeal the ruling. The US Supreme Court has now granted her an extra month to decide on an appeal. The extension now gives her until June 24. Madigan’s office released a statement saying:

“The extension allows for additional time to prepare a draft petition to allow the Attorney General to make a final decision on whether to seek (appeal).”

If no legislation is passed by June 9, concealed carry will go into effect in Illinois without any regulations. The appeal extension does not affect the reality of the June 9 date.

Meanwhile, the General Assembly is still debating what limitations to put on concealed carry. Advocates on both sides received setbacks a few weeks ago when each had bills defeated. A recent outburst between opponents in the State House may also provide a window into the pressure some are feeling regarding the approaching deadline.

Debating a change in the concealed carry bill, Republican Rep. Mike Bost and Democratic Rep. Scott Drury engaged in verbal fisticuffs on the House floor. Bost objected to a proposed amendment that would have made Illinois a “May Issue” state:

“Floor amendments should be some technical small change that we shouldn’t have to worry about. But yet you bring a whole bill that has questions whether it is even constitutional . . . This is not the bill that everyone has debated!”

Drury responded by questioning the Republicans’ credibility on the matter of constitutionality:

“A lot of talk in this room about the Constitution and what’s constitutional – but the last time I looked around there’s not one single constitutional scholar sitting in this chamber. So why don’t we stop with all the nonsense about what’s constitutional and what’s not constitutional and get to what’s actually in the bill.”

Bost interrupted and order was nearly lost. After the outburst, Drury said in Bost’s direction, “We don’t want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon.”

The amendment in question was eventually defeated. Its defeat left the bill in the same place as before.

The recent events in the Illinois concealed carry debate indicate it is a state that is still far from establishing a threshold on gun rights and safety. Attorney General Lisa Madigan has some extra time to appeal the ruling, but the deadline is fast approaching. Yet, regardless of the appeal process, there is approximately one month before concealed carry becomes a reality in Illinois – possibly without any regulations.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

(Credit: Gage Skidmore)

On Wednesday, the South Carolina House of Representatives passed a bill that would effectively make it a federal crime to enforce the Affordable Care Act within the Palmetto State. To supporters and opponents alike, the bill is an act of nullification.

Named the “South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act,” the legislation passed 65-39 in the Republican-controlled House. If enacted, the bill will:

“Prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for enforcing this article.”

Contrary to some other nullification proposals in other states, this bill actually seeks to nullify a federal law officially on the books.

Greenville tea party activist Chris Lawton told the Greenville (SC) Post, “This kind of victory occurs when the grassroots across the State come together and coalesce. . . . I could not be prouder.”

However, not every supporter of this South Carolina nullification effort is optimistic. The website fitsnews.com, a South Carolina based outfit, said upon the bill’s passage:

“Our only concern? That ‘Republican’ lawmakers will use the eventual failure of this bill – either in the legislative process or court – as a pretext for supporting the massive Medicaid expansion associated with Obamacare.”

Also according to fitsnews.com, the bill that passed is a watered down version:

“It’s worth pointing out that the Obamacare nullification bill that cleared the S.C. House was stripped of several of its most controversial enforcement provisions, rendering it more of a symbolic gesture than anything else.”

“Remember, the original version of the bill held that any federal employees attempting to enforce Obamacare would be ‘guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years,’ while any state employee attempting to enforce the law would be ‘guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years.’

With a Republican governor and Republican legislative majorities, the battles over the South Carolina nullification bill are more likely to ensue in the courts than in the legislature. The bill now proceeds to the state Senate where Republicans also hold a majority and where passage is expected.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

In the only scheduled debate in the South Carolina first congressional district, Mark Sanford was pretty good, Elizabeth Colbert Busch wasn’t bad, and the blows they exchanged at The Citadel might indicate a tightening race.

First Colbert Busch. She was charming and polite. Running in a district that went about 60% for Mitt Romney, she knows being identified as a national Democrat is a losing strategy. So, she emphasized her independence.

She can’t run away from some of her liberal positions, so she positioned herself as a moderate, independent-minded South Carolina Democrat. She came out as pro-choice, referenced Dick Cheney on her support for gay marriage, and toed a careful line of supporting the Second Amendment while also calling for more background checks on gun purchases.

Colbert Busch scored a winning point in her closing statement by announcing she would take a 10% pay cut once she’s in Congress. It’s mostly a symbolic move, kind of like reducing the deficit by eliminating those gold presidential dollar coins, but it definitely plays well to a populace tired of career politicians. Although without a past record and needing to eschew any connections to Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Colbert Busch mainly avoided specifics. This tactic reduced many of her statements and rebuttals to simple platitudes.

Sanford, on the other hand, has won five career elections, had specifics to draw upon, and he was prepared with rebuttals. The only time he was noticeably knocked off his game was in a not-so-veiled reference to leaving the state for “personal business.” He stuttered for a couple seconds, but seemed to bounce back to his feet.

He also effectively invoked Nancy Pelosi’s constant fundraising for Colbert Busch. Although it became audibly tiresome for many, it was clearly an attempt to discredit Colbert Busch as a moderate independent Democrat. For Sanford to win, he will need to convince voters that if they rebuke him for the first time in his career, it will be for a foot soldier in Nancy Pelosi’s liberal caucus. The exasperated responses on Twitter might also hint that Sanford’s plan is working.

This round went for Sanford, but polls still show Colbert Busch with a lead. I’m no conspiracy-monger when it comes to polls, but in a district as heavily Republican as the first, voter turn-out matters more than polls. If enough Republicans decide Sanford’s personal foibles do not outweigh a potential Nancy Pelosi disciple, Sanford can win.

That will still be tough after the NRCC pulled the plug on Sanford after the trespassing allegations were publicized. However, this might help Sanford turn this into a race against Nancy Pelosi and the establishment GOP.

To boost that, Yahoo News is now reporting that Sen. Rand Paul will be endorsing Sanford in the near future. Sen. Paul’s father, Ron Paul, endorsed Sanford last week. The father’s endorsement probably means less than the son’s right now, but it still plays into the motif of Sanford vs. the Dark Forces of Politics.

The special election is one week from Tuesday. Elizabeth Colbert Busch debated like a candidate with a tenuous lead and didn’t do anything to finish off her opponent. Mark Sanford displayed all the talents that have made him a formidable politician. He was upbeat, grinning, and ready for just about all of his opponent’s attacks.

He’s not dead yet.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.

(2lights.net / Shutterstock)

As the US and the West investigate claims that chemical weapons have been used in the Syrian civil war, both sides in the conflict are blaming the other for a recent abduction.

On Monday of last week, two Christian Syrian bishops were kidnapped on their way to Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, after a humanitarian trip to Turkey. The abducted individuals are Greek Orthodox Archbishop Paul Yazigi and Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Yohanna Ibrahim.

According to the Daily Star, an English language newspaper in Lebanon, the two Christian leaders:

“were snatched by foreign gunmen – allegedly Chechens fighting with the Islamist opposition Nusra Front – after returning from a humanitarian mission to retrieve two other kidnapped priests.”

The US State Department designated the Nusra Front a terrorist group in late 2012. Earlier this month, al Qaeda in Iraq announced that it had merged with the Nusra Front fighting in Syria.

No group has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

“The Syrian government has blamed the kidnappings of the two bishops on ‘terrorists,’ the official designation of armed rebels seeking to oust Assad. But opposition fighters in Aleppo have denied abducting the pair.”

Al Jazeera and other media sources reported that the bishops had been released, but those reports have been retracted.

Pressure is increasing for whoever is holding the bishops to release them. An online petition to the White House was created last week. So far it has nearly three thousand signatures.

The Greek Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church have each issued statements calling for the release of the bishops. There has also been a joint statement from the church bodies directly affected by the kidnappings, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East.

On Saturday, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) joined in by announcing its support for the “unconditional” release of the Syrian bishops. The OIC is an intergovernmental association with members in 57 countries. Its stated purpose includes “promoting international peace and harmony among various peoples of the world.” A statement from the OIC secretary general called for the:

“immediate and unconditional release because such [sic] act contradicts the principles of true Islam, and the [high] status held for Christian clergymen in Islam.”

Violence against Christians in the Middle East has increased after the US-led invasion of Iraq ten years ago and during the so-called Arab Spring. Many of these uprisings have swept away old regimes that tended to safeguard Christian populations. Now the world watches as the Syrian bishops remain captive in perhaps the most high profile episode of antagonism directed at Middle Eastern Christians.

Carl WicklanderICON - Conservatism, as the name implies, is about conserving: conserving life, conserving culture, and conserving one’s country.