The Whatcom Excavator

It's high time for an update about ICLEI.   You know, the "sustainability" organization that both Whatcom County and City of Bellingham have been joined-to for some years.   ICLEI stands for "International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives," but it also soft-pedals itself as “Local Governments for Sustainability” and ICLEI USA.   That may sound wholesome, but we have good cause to think any relationship with 'em should end.

More than one local politician has attempted to brush aside and pooh-pooh concerns raised about ICLEI.   But let there be no doubt, ICLEI is not benign.  From inception ICLEI's goal has been to reshape and steer the world toward a global political superstructure of U.N. design by coaxing one city and county after another into its network.   The network has now become quite large.

WE've located and posted a pair of video interviews (below) of ICLEI founder, Jeb Brugmann.   He describes the long term plan plainly.

But first, see that ICLEI has adopted new “Oceania” branding for its Asian secretariat.   In  light of ICLEI's we're here for you strategy, the name rang a bell in a way that's creepy.   Ever read the book "1984" by George Orwell, or see one (or both) full length films based on the tale?   Yes, the book is fiction.   For all we know, this Oceania imaging is tongue-in-cheek.   Who knows?

Some insist that ICLEI's influence is distant and unrelated to local programs.  True?   Unfortunately, ICLEI is very "present."  Both Bellingham and Whatcom County adopted elaborate ICLEI climate-change ordinances that established goals for us, the public, without common knowledge.  Since those ordinances were adopted ICLEI has kept a hand in following-up on local "performance."  ICLEI's international standards have crept into our code and regulations.  WE reported that they want to go even farther now, to direct public and private affairs in our region (see its recent proposal at the Northwest Clean Air Agency site).  No, ICLEI isn't inactive.  It's heavily promoting food and transportation directives to members, and it always directs jurisdictions to the U.N.'s human habitat strategy for urban megaregions (we're in "Cascadia").   Does any part of that seem suitable here?

Here's another item, an ICLEI account of City of Bellingham councilman Jack Weiss accepting an award  from Brugmann himself, on behalf of Bellingham and Whatcom County.   This trophy was presented for the EPA-funded Community Energy Challenge that the Excavator revealed as not only a financial bust, but a major crony trip to the public trough.

Voicing concerns about ICLEI is not paranoid tinfoil-hat talk.

Brugmann is quite frank in this interview about the history and intent of ICLEI.   He would know, he's ICLEI’s founder.  In the interview he describes its strategy for achieving political globalization by way of planning policy.  He describes a 10-year campaign to establish “stakeholder” alliances, and promoting growth management through urbanism.   Brugmann warmly recalls coordinating with the U.N.'s Maurice Strong when Agenda 21 was launched.   [Strong is infamous for this faux pas, (quote):  "Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child. "]    Watch his ICLEI Oceania videos:

Last year, on May 10, 2011 questions about ICLEI were raised at a Whatcom County council Finance Committee meeting.   Council member Ken Mann made a reference to ICLEI software (that's a bit of a mystery, but WE suggest we could live without it).   The minutes say,  “Crawford stated he would like the administration and Council to consider the membership when the 2013-2014 budget process begins.”

Okay, its  budget time.  If ICLEI membership funding hasn’t ended yet, that needs to happen.  Not only must membership end (that would require a resolution repeal), but other involvement and ties should be severed.   It doesn't matter if ICLEI offers affiliation and services "for free" (WE believe that's the current arrangement).  It's vision isn't ours.

Last year  Pete Kremen promised that ICLEI's membership fee wouldn't be paid, but apparently that made no difference.  Whatcom County remains on its list of members.   (Who knows where Jack Louws stands on ICLEI, if he's even aware of what it really is.)  City of Bellingham is still listed as an active member.  Who knows if the mayor or council have ever considered untangling from ICLEI, but it should.

Any legislation that makes performance commitments to a non-government organization, an international one, to steer citizens is simply wrong.  Council has the authority to repeal every ICLEI related resolution, ordinance, and official reference.

"Why exactly would a jurisdiction need ICLEI ties and commitments?"  That question needs to be asked.  Governments can be good neighbors with high standards without entering into agreements with "worldwide" non-government organizations.  How did this ever pass review?   It doesn't matter now.

WE think the most untenable part of this is that our local governments have aligned and committed to an international organization that aspires to establish an overarching political structure, with the desire to change us and direct public policy through the adoption of its policies and guidance.   ICLEI holds "world congresses" that front for the U.N.   That may not have been revealed to officials when they became involved, but it's definitely known now.

We are a self-directed sovereign nation.   Government on all levels is accountable solely to us, we the people.   The supreme law of the land is literally ours.   Each representative swears a personal allegiance to us when they take their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution.   Our governments must disconnect from this organization that seeks to coordinate plans for the world.   WE think others that knock on the door making similar offers to make public policy for us should be sent packing too.  When they sing sweetly "... Every deed, every thought, tis for thee"  it's pretty obvious:   No, they're not.