Stephan Brandner, December 6, 2024, Lèse-majesté

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/204, pp. 26472-26473. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

I find that we are quite well set. When I look at the ranks of the other delegations, it appears quite good in regards to us. 

Let me begin with a pre-Christmas fairy tale. There was once a kingdom, let us call it Collapsistan, with all that pertains thereto. There was a king, let us call him Olaf the Forgetful, a prince, let us call him Robert Feeble-minded [Schwachkopf] the First, his beautiful but rather dumb consort princess Anna the Clueless, a wicked, gruesome, cunning stepmother, Marie-Agnes, and a court jester by the name of Karl the Confused. There were also dark, corrupt powers: The BlackRockers, led by Fritz the Babbler and Jens “Allow us a villa” Spahn. 

This Collapsistan sank into chaos for want of qualified leaders. It was not at all on this account chased from the castle, because the secret service, the police and the media protected it. The social and economic chaos was so great that the people were continually impoverished and enraged; whereas the rulers lived in unimaginable, lavish luxury, riotously, made horrendous debts due to deficient income, and, despite that, tossed off hundreds of thousands for castle photos in which they should appear in shining lights, for hairdressing, which in one day cost as much as what many poor people in Collapsistan did not have available in a month. They flew with luxury jets which the people needed to finance – who else? – to and fro through world history, made flights of a distance walked by other people. The state religion paid homage to the climate pharaohs for which insane gifts and sacrifices were prepared. 

The result is clear: The world laughed over this incompetent barn of corruption. And the citizens in Collapsistan were offended, insulted and mocked. Yet the rulers made no better policy, but demanded draconian penalties for critical statements. 

Ladies and gentlemen, thus far a fairy tale; nevertheless with a present reference. 

In Germany also chaos governs. The citizens are disquieted; by rustic, pointed expressions make themselves noticeable and vent their feelings. Yet those who govern here govern no better, but have critical citizens persecuted by the police by means of warnings and legal intimidations. Through the years, a denunciation and spying network has been laid over Germany like a mildew, and those who govern have created for themselves protective, special laws, like section 188 of the criminal code which is here on the table and which only particularly punishes the insulting of politicians, and indeed with two to three years custody. Three years! If a simple citizen is insulted, a penalty of merely one year threatens the perpetrator. 

In addition, the normal citizen needs to trouble himself and file a criminal complaint. For a politician, in practice, that follows automatically, as per section 194 of the criminal code. And so it can well be that, in the morning in the residence of a supposed critic of the government, as for example in mid-November of a former soldier with a handicapped child, officially stand the police who almost kicked down the door just because he shared a funny photo of Robert Habeck. 

This special law was created in 2021 as a measure against hate and agitation and rightist extremism by politicians who now profit therefrom. It reminds me personally, I need quite honestly say, of the anti-state agitation in the DDR penal code, or the statute against malicious attacks on the state and party from the year 1934. 

And precisely the politicians who created this statute now profit therefrom, and thus earn for themselves a cornucopia. Comically, start-up businesses were founded which do nothing other than warn blameless citizens, demand warning fees and then make fifty-fifty with the politicians. Something is thus just so transparent, ladies and gentlemen. Robert Habeck alone has filed 800 criminal complaints [Strafanzeigen erstattet] during his time in office, a total of a thousand criminal complaints by Baerbock, Strack-Zimmermann and as they all are called. They do not defend themselves by means of good politics, they defend themselves by means of harassing measures. Especially is the FDP at the fore, have I read. The FDP manages such warning unions, such warning start-ups, and is proud of it. 

Katharina Willkomm (FDP): No, no no! We have nothing to do with that. Those are private people.

Ladies and gentlemen, we politicians are not especially worthy of protection. Publicity is part of our jobs. We seek publicity. We wallow in publicity. We go with joy into publicity. And why should we be better protected by the criminal code than normal people? 

We politicians are not weaklings who require the special protection of the criminal law. We are no majesties, no kings, no princes. We are employees of the citizens who elect us and pay us. There thus needs be an end to that you of the cartel parties lift yourselves above the citizens, an end to the special law for politicians, an end to section 188 of the criminal code, the lèse-majesté of modern times which is nothing other than an expression of a repressive, authoritarian understanding of the state. 

Likewise, go our way! Section 188 out of the penal code! This here is only a current hour, yet the corresponding draft law is done and will be brought in next. 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): Where is it, then?

Many thanks and Merry Christmas if we should no more see one another. 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, October 18, 2024, Internet Censorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/195, pp. 25551-25552. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Friday afternoon – important themes of freedom of opinion. The Federal Network Agency [Bundesnetzagentur] comes along with a modest name, scarcely anyone knows it, is thereby meanwhile in fact the commanding censorship authority in Germany. 

            Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): That is just rubbish!

What is that for an agency? With the dissolution of the Postal Ministry, in 1998 founded as a regulatory authority for telephone and post, then also competent for gas and electric lines, later for the railway network. Meanwhile, it has almost 3,000 co-workers settled in the work area of green Economy Destruction Minister Habeck, and the chief is the Green party friend Klaus Müller who since 1990 is with the Greens, and since 2022 leads the Federal Network Agency, this censorship authority. He is now in fact the chief of the German commanding censors. He names so-called trusted flaggers. As a member of the German Language Union [Vereins Deutsche Sprache], it is clear to me: Who has something to hide, he speaks Denglish, or tries to with anglicisms, and precisely so is it here. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): As opposed to you, most people meanwhile understand that.

Trusted flagger is officially translated as trustworthy whistleblower [„vertrauenswürdige Hinweisgeber“]. At first, it sounds quite good. Yet for we citizens, they are plainly not trustworthy, but only for those rulers sensitive to criticism; wherefore in our view the better fitting translation is “digital block warden”, “thought police” or “government spy”; since that is what they are. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): You now again show that you do not manage the translations so good.

Here is driven another massive frontal assault on Article 5 of the Basic Law, the freedom of opinion, one of the most important basic rights, and core component of a living democracy. The idea of course is only illegal content shall be reported by internet spies and internet accusers equipped with exclusive access to the platforms. Yet the answer to the question, Who specifically shall that ultimately be?, leaves the worst to be feared. Who can become an internet accuser? Non-government organizations, civil society actors, religious pedagogues, trades union members, thus anyone who in fact emits the left-green thinking. 

And so no wonder that the first reporting office, in good Denglish manner, is named “REspect”, in which is sheltered one of the Islam teachers trained in the notorious and suspected Al Azhar University in Cairo. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): Herr Brandner, we’ve heard all that from Reichelt! What’s new?

The reporting office belongs to the Youth Foundation Baden Württemberg, is nursed with tax money and thus arises – we all know of it – from the left-green swamp. And this troop of, among others, religious pedagogues shall now be qualified to decide over which expressions of opinion are legitimate and which not. Actually inconceivable, or? 

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe to go too far when I say: If there had earlier been censorship authorities as presently – there were as is known some better – then would have been unthinkable showbiz greats like Thomas Gottschalk, Harald Schmidt or Rudi Carrell. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): And Helmut Schmidt!

They would no longer be allowed on the screen. We of course live in an increasingly homogenized [gleichschalteten] television- and in an increasingly oppressed digital-world, which sets up instructions and limitations, instead of open, substantial discussions. Tutored thought everywhere from the public broadcasting. 

The internet was still a bit of a free space. It becomes ever more limited. The rulers are watching. All that is unsuitable is out. Thus alternative media in Germany will be blocked, oppressed and hindered. Trusted flaggers become still more active, and will judge whether something is hatred, fake news or illegal. The worst is to be feared. 

And the worst is: There is nothing in the Basic Law in this regard. The state precisely knows it may not censor. Yet so as to attain the opposite, it privatizes the censorship. It circumvents, so to say, the Basic Law’s command, and sets up a terror of unity opinion [Einheitsmeinung], instead  of variety of opinion. We of the AfD stand for the exact opposite. We stand for variety and for freedom of opinion, and not for the unity opinion terror. 

The FDP participates. It cannot be believed what the former free, liberal party is thus doing. Herr Kubicki, who as President sits behind me, distances himself a bit from that, yet in the end he will again be for it. We, ja, know him; he is something like the Rambo of the FDP, who now and then may blink right, but then is precisely in line. That does not make the matter better. 

Alone, the Alternative für Deutschland remains as before a guarantor for democracy, for law, for freedom and especially for freedom of opinion in Germany. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): Blah, blah, blah!

We therefore demand with our motion [Drucksache 20/13364] – you’ve all read it – simply: The Federal government shall block financial grants to organizations which want to effect the deletion of user contributions which fall under the freedom of opinion. We want the Federal Cartel Office to be instructed to know, to look into: How do the arrangements for hate speech function? That would be a mission for the Federal Cartel Office. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): The Federal Cartel Office should examine the AFD?

Herr President, I come to an end; I see it blinking here. – In addition, the censorship measures on the European level need to be abolished. 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague, come to a conclusion.

And the trusted flaggers, the internet spies, may have no future in Germany. 

Many thanks. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): On what censorship is, you need to read up again.

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, July 4, 2024, Voting, Escrow and Shakespeare

German Bundestag, July 4, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23593-23594. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is, so to say, the Shakespeare of the AfD who now again has the word. A pleasant good evening, I wish you. Yet an exciting point is on the daily order for today’s debate. It is a high point, and a high point of every Berlin trip – this goes for the guests in the gallery – when one can occupy oneself at 2240 with the professional law of the registered professions – notaries, attorneys-at-law, patent attorneys and the tax consultants. Thus it crowns each day. 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): 2236!

2240, I said. It is 2236. You can still read the numbers, in contrast to me. That distinguishes you, and you are with the SPD. Congratulations that it functions! 

Thus, it is about allowing possibilities, which there were during Corona; for example, of being able to hold principal proceedings [Hauptverhandlungen] in hybrid or virtual form. Do you now continue to count, or can I continue talking? 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): I’m listening, even if it’s difficult.

Okay. Or, there is the possibility to continue mail-in voting or also to bringing about decisions by means of the post office. That, we find quite good. I say, there can be nothing against that. 

Nevertheless, we look critically upon the possibility of conducting virtual or hybrid association assemblies [Kammerversammlungen]. It is also undemocratic in regards associations if they can or must be held exclusively. As a result, we therefore reject that. In regards the conduct of the assembly, the flexibility should indeed be strengthened, and be given the possibility to lower the threshold of being able to participate; in the lived, German practice – you all know the construction of our networks – those affected may expect all possible forms of technical imponderabilities which can and will make impossible the orderly conduct of assemblies. You all know of software problems, connection and network problems, to the point of a complete break of connection. All is conceivable in Germany. Everyone knows that who more or less regularly takes part in such on-line conversations. 

It should not remain unmentioned that you – God be thanked – have turned a corner concerning the originally planned possibility to scour without cause attorneys’ escrow accounts and so be able to massively encroach upon attorney privilege [Mandatsgeheimnis]. 

            Otto Fricke (FDP): Collective accounts, Herr colleague! 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): Otto, he’s not familiar with that!

It would have been a systemic break. There would have been considerably more administrative expense. It’s therefore nice that you in the last meters have managed to eliminate that from the law. 

All in all: You now previously from here have heard a comprehensive, Shakespearean weighing of the pros and cons of this law. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): I believe you have never read Shakespeare.

We have wrestled with it, we have debated, and as a result come to the view: We unfortunately cannot vote in favor. That will not prevent this law, it also should not; we will with absolute vigor abstain. 

I thus for the AfD delegation dispatch or release, on a nice evening, you and the guests above in the gallery into the Berlin nightlife. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, July 5, 2024, Pro-Life and Criminal Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23698-23699. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The left-greens can primarily do one thing: Discover ideological fighting words. Today, a new one: Sidewalk harassment [Gehsteigbelästigung], discovered by gender ideologue Ulrike Lembke. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): What rubbish is this, then?

All forms of relevant harassment are nevertheless today culpable, or are a violation of an ordinance. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Right!

Thus why now Gehsteigbelästigung? An Orwellian newspeak. 

You want to demolish basic rights of Christians and defenders of life. For you, it is not about climate clingers who block hundreds of thousands of motorists, or about tens of thousands of leftist extremists seeking to prevent with violence an AfD party day, and also not about Islamists who in their fighting prayers conquer our public space. You find all of that to be fantastic or democratic or acceptable. Yet when Christians and defenders of life make use of their right to freedom of opinion or freedom of assembly, then you hollow out [drehen Sie hohl]. 

The Federal Administrative Court on 23 May 2023 clearly held that defenders of life may demonstrate in front of pro-family abortion centers. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for a term?

I cite: 

“There is in a pluralistic society no right to remain entirely exempt from the confrontation with divergent religious presentations or opinions.”

With that, all is said. 

You present in your draft law the assertion that, by means of sidewalk harassment, counseling offices and abortion clinics would be hindered in their activity, or those pregnant restrained from entering them. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): No, the women are hindered in their counseling possibilities. You need to read it correctly, Frau von Storch!

A dumb thing, that is a dumb thing! You know that. For that, there is no statistic, there is no survey, there are no police reports, there is simply nothing. You discover a problem which does not exist so that you have a reason to proceed with state repression against Christians and defenders of life. 

It is little surprising that the preparation for this comes from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which in 2021 published an evaluation with the title, “Possibilities of Statutory New Regulation in the Conflict Field of Sidewalk Harassment”. The author: Sina Fontana. And here it becomes interesting, since Frau Fontana has written another evaluation with the title, “Universal Women’s Rights and Islamic Law”. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Oh! An interesting alliance!

Fontana therein wrote that the Scharia is quite wonderfully compatible with women’s rights. That is the Greens: Criminalize Christian prayers because against women’s rights, but praise and extol Scharia because good for women’s rights. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Unbelievable!

The central point: Who like the Greens and the Linke defend Scharia, for them it is not about women’s rights, but for them it is about the fight against our culture.           

Canan Bayram (Greens): You have a Scharia fetish, Frau von Storch!

And in this culture war, the green Verbot parties want to silence critics, naturally with friendly support of the FDP. One prayer or the protest of defenders of life: 5,000 euro fine. Here in the Bundestag, to name a specific first name in a specific context: 1,000 euro fine. The Green catalogue of fines for forbidden expressions will soon become very long. 

            Gero Clemens Hocker (FDP): Expensive for you, Frau von Storch!

This law is unconstitutional and breathes the spirit of a totalitarian Green ideology. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): A court still decides, and not you, what is compatible with the constitution!

And the CDU wants to forbid the prayers, but thinks for that the right of assembly suffices; you have indeed said it, and Frau Breiler also on Wednesday in committee. Alone the FDP – not alone the FDP is responsible, but it shares in all of this. 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Your confusion is noted.

Alone the AfD stands for defense of life and freedom of opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to me you will not forbid prayers, and also not the expression of the male name of Markus. 

 

[trans: tem]

Fabian Jacobi, July 4, 2024, The German Language

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23455-23456. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With associations, it is so a matter: What in regards a new item of business comes to one spontaneously, often appears accidental and then proves to be of little help. In the case put forward, my thoughts certainly turn back more often in further course to the matter which this draft law for me initially called to mind. The famous sociologist and economist Max Weber expressed it in his entry speech at the University of Freiberg in the year 1895, and he said: 

“Big businesses which are only to be maintained at the cost of German nationality, from the standpoint of the nation are worthy of perishing…”

Now, the circumstance to which this matter referred – it was about the collapse of the noble estates in the Prussian agrarian areas – has well nigh sunk into the fogs of history. And the verbal characteristic of Weber’s speech for us today has become foreign. Yet it would be decadent arrogance to believe on that account alone we could easily do without the insights and thoughts of earlier generations. 

You, ladies and gentlemen, want by means of the law which you today are deciding “to strengthen Germany as a venue of justice [Justizstandort Deutschland]” The expression reveals the authors’ world view. It is a view which we do not share. 

The German state is no business firm which has to compete for a share of the market. The German state is, if so desired, the worldly form [weltliche Gestalt] of the German nation the continuation of which it has to serve. To this belongs that the language of this Republic is and remains the German language. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!

You want to strengthen the justice venue in which German courts further conduct proceedings in the English language, and no longer pronounce sentence in the name of the people in the language of the people. 

This shall initially apply only for a specific category of judicial procedures. It would  nevertheless be naïve to suppose the matter will thereby rest. The FDP, the minister of which is responsible for the law, demands introducing quite generally the English language as an official language of the German state. We recognize here the first step of a classic salami tactic: Once the salami begins to be cut, it is only a question of time until it is completely consumed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we experience for long already the downfall of our language. The loss of its earlier importance beyond our borders needs not be mourned; yet it might be explained as a consequence of two destructive world wars. Meanwhile long since also occurs the decline in its own land. 

Martin Plum (CDU/CSU): In the Legal Affairs Committee, also with you!

Ever more often it happens that in businesses the staff are urged to communicate with one another not in German but in English. Universities hold teaching events in the English language, even if all participants are native German speakers or are fluent in German. 

Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): You as a member speak English in committee!

And now also shall a core area of our state, the justice, begin the process of the suppression of our language. If we open this door a crack, so will it tomorrow be completely pushed open. It should remain closed. This applies all the more as the implications disturb not only the national but also the democratic character of our polity. 

In the pre-democratic ages, the feudal ruling class spoke to one another in French, despised the German language as a language of farmers and domestics. This situation was overcome by the bürgerlichen and democratic revolution of the 19^th Century. The German national state which grew out of that revolution would be entirely perverted; in the 21^st Century, it wanted to set about abetting a revival of such a social division [Der deutsche Nationalstaat, der aus jener Revolution erwuchs, würde gänzlich pervertiert, wollte er sich im 21. Jahrhundert daranmachen, einem Wiederaufleben solcher gesellschaftlicher Spaltung Vorschub zu leisten]. I began this speech with a citation, and with a citation I also close: 

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): The main thing, to end! 

“We hope that what always distinguishes and will distinguish the nation from other nations…our beautiful language, will not become dry and common, but will renew its nobility, and with it all that finds its expression in words. If that not be done, what would all recovered great power and seeming power then help us?”

Golo Mann wrote that as a closing sentence of his Deutschen Geschichte. And if my speech will surely have no influence on today’s vote, may it still be taken to heart by one or another for his future work in this house. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, May 16, 2024, Petr Bystron and EU Election

AfD Kompakt, May 16, 2024. 

The lifting of the immunity and the search of the office and private space of Petr Bystron are a serious proceeding. So far, no evidence has been presented for the accusations raised for weeks against Herr Bystron. The AfD delegation therefore hopes for a speedy conclusion of the investigations so that the suspicion does not arise that here officials and instructed state prosecutors are attempting to influence the European election campaign. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, April 15, 2024, Abortion

AfD Kompakt, April 15, 2024. 

Federal Family Minister Lisa Paus already made clear, before the formation of this Commission, that her political goal is general impunity for aborted pregnancies. Even from its name, it may be concluded that for this Ampel government it has at no time been about an unbiased “Whether”, but only about the “How” of taking down the hurdles for a termination of pregnancy. Consequently, the thereby constituted working groups were extensively filled with women who themselves in the past either had attracted attention with politically approved positions, or had been active for corresponding associations like “Pro Familia” or the “Deustchen Juristinnenbund”. 

In the Commission report, the focus is one-sidedly shifted from defense of unborn life to the alleged self-determination rights of women. The hereto given jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court is thereby fully disregarded, and a liberalization of abortion law frankly presented as constitutionally imperative [verfassungsrechtlich geboten]. How the resulting defenselessness of unborn children to the end of the 22^nd week of pregnancy is reconcilable with their human dignity guaranteed by the Basic Law, the report nevertheless does not explain. 

The Ampel undertakes the public attempt to annul the defense of unborn life in favor of the right to abortion. The recommendations of its Commission merely serve as a first step of a long-term project to establish abortion as a natural “human right”. This hides the serious danger that the priority [Stellenwert] of human life in social consciousness will be generally degraded. This under all circumstances must be prevented. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, March 21, 2024, Debt Brake

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/160, pp. 20611-20612. 

Frau President. 

For the umpteenth time the Linke wants to abolish the debt brake, this time disguised as a “reform”. Meant, however, is the cold abolition; Herr Görke was certainly at least honest. Since 2020, we clearly have a great coalition of all old parties for a boundless making of debt. In addition, we know that the tax money will not be sufficient for the government even in 2025. And the SPD’s speaker has confirmed that a great left-green debt coalition thoroughly sympathizes with this “reform”, or with the abolition idea. 

What does the Linke now concretely propose? In the future, a “transition phase” of precisely one year shall increase the possible excess indebtedness, which diametrically contradicts what the Federal Constitutional Court permitted just last November: Very clearly, a setting aside of the debt brake only for the year of a catastrophe itself. Any time exceeding a year was explicitly forbidden by the Federal Constitutional Court. That does not interest the leftist writers of the motion. 

In the motion’s second demand, the single hard guideline of Article 115, namely the structural deficit limit of 0.35 percent of GDP, shall be annulled. That however would be no “reform” of the debt brake, but a material alteration of the Basic Law’s wording, which may not proceed with a simple motion but only with a law to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority. The motion is thus also badly written. 

With the third demand, the besides already highly mathematical finding procedure for the debt brake’s business cycle component shall be still further complicated. Who for once takes a rudimentary look at the formulation [Formelwelt], and the arbitrary scope of valuation which will be used for this calculation, knows that a self-indebted government chronically short of money can thereby vastly exceed the permitted limit of indebtedness – even today. The aim of the Linke, to receive still “greater fiscal scope”, as it is in the motion, is thus absurd, since this scope today already is enormous. 

Clearly, the terms in Article 115 of the Basic Law are very spongy. There are therein named arbitrary expectations without clear deduction criteria, free of parameters as a result of unclear entities, certain cyclical norms, gaps in production, estimates of potential and cyclical settlement procedures, all without binding definitions. And the number in the end will determined by technocratic procedures and legal decrees. 

Dear Linke, you should here just simply love the already existing planned economy, instead of wanting to reform it. Precisely that of course already is your vulgarized Keynesian theoretical model of a world. Simply enjoy it as long as you are still permitted to sit here and play with a national economy. 

Many thanks. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Nothing missed there!

 

[trans: tem]

 

Stephan Brandner, February 22, 2024, Corrupt Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/154, pp. 19757-19758. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr Fechner, that was way past the themes on which you have spoken here. Yet you have made a gift to us of the seven minutes – a very good thing! The people outside there nevertheless need to know: It is all the same what you fill out in your order of business, you in any case do not restrain yourself when it is at the expense of the AfD. Therefore: Considerable hypocrisy, I need say to you! 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): Why then do you continually lose? Why do you continually lose before the Constitutional Court? 

As to the matter itself, – you have regrettably missed the theme; to the back of the class, Herr Fechner! – it is about old parties, crony business, nepotism, family gangs. We have already been acquainted in this legislative period with the Graichen clan in a Green ministry. Suddenly, a scandal in the FDP Transportation Ministry: There, a section leader for hydrogen has provided his relations and acquaintances with millions; 

            Tina Rudolph (SPD): Greetings to Azerbaijian!

hence, a quick stop of hydrogen projects at the Transportation Ministry. 

All of this is however no exception, ladies and gentlemen. We have the Porsche-mails, of which Herr Wissing apparently also has not heard. We have Herr Lindner and the BB Bank. All of which is very dubious. We have the Kahrs connections through which colleague Kahrs has supplied his Sozikumpel in Hamburg. We do not exactly know what’s with the Benko clan and the Federal government. We have Löbel, Tandler, Sauter, Nüsslein, CDU and CSU captains 

            Ruppert Stüwe (SPD): Yet you are the delegation with the most criminals!

all up to the collar in a corruption and donations swamp. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): So, now on the code of conduct! On the theme!

And you present yourself here in all seriousness and act as if you want to change anything for the better! 

Ladies and gentlemen out there, you must know, regardless whether mask deals, Habeck clans, Benko, Gabriel, Lindner, Tandler, Löbel, or how they all are called, thus regardless whether SPD, FDP, Greens, CDU or CSU, 

            Tina Rudolph (SPD): Nicely excluding your own corruption scandals!

all of you – and this I say ever again from here – have looted the state, without limit. You know no boundaries so as to fill your pockets at the expense of the taxpayers out there. Your daily allowances should be enough. You have not been appointed for lobbying. Despite this, you do not trouble yourselves with what is going through the people’s minds out there, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): That is unparliamentary!

Apropos lobby contacts: Is Frau Agnes Strack-Rheinmetall here? 

            Ingo Bodtke (FDP): That is an impudence!

She likely continues to lobby. 

You cannot and do not want to halt the lobbying because all of you profit therefrom. Thus the lobby register law is nothing but a dead bird. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): “Dead bird”! There you have long reflected!

It contains no legislative, no executive footprint, as we want, so can be verified: Where has someone somehow exercised an influence on legislation? That, all of you do not want. Representatives of interests can decline the statements on their financing. Lobbyists need not reveal for which projects and statutory purposes they are working. There are so many exceptions that the exceptions are the rule, ladies and gentlemen. 

Today, it is only about minimal alterations. You thereby want to trim that you simply slept through the original legislative process. 

            Anke Henning (SPD): How can one talk so much rubbish?

You have headlong brought into this parliament a few hours before the final vote motions to amend which you yourselves do not understand. We therefore here today need to speak in plenary session on redactive alterations. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): That is just idiocy! Dumb thing! We do nothing in the lobby register! Nothing is changed in the lobby register!

We could have spared ourselves all of this. Had you done reasonable legislative work, as we will do it when we shortly are in the government, we would have been able to completely spare ourselves this debate point. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): You certainly have not read it, Herr Brandner! You do not grasp the simplest points! 

Tina Rudolph (SPD): We can spare ourselves this entire democracy if you are in the government!

You have once again exposed yourselves. It is good that this could again be expressed here; I know not how long that still goes. 

Many thanks. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Ja, tschüs! 

 

[trans: tem]

Bernd Baumann, January 18, 2024, Remigration and the AfD

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/147, pp. 18686-18687. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Never before has a government driven our country up against the wall like this one – which today is again not here. The citizens suffer under exploding prices for energy and foodstuffs, as well as under a housing emergency, a heating law, kaputten bridges and roads, decaying schools. Industry flees out of the country, and millions of asylum seekers of foreign culture flow in unhindered. What a disaster! What a frightful balance, ladies and gentlemen! 

Germany shakes under the outcry of despairing farmers, truckers, tradesmen, restaurant owners. The emergency is great. The trust is gone; all surveys shows this. For example, Saxony: There, the SPD has shrunk to seven percent, 

            Stephan Brander (AfD): Still too much!

perhaps does not come again into the parliament, FDP and Greens also not. 

            Sven Lehmann (Greens): Do not celebrate too early!

And the AfD? It is well at 35 percent. We are presently five times as strong as the Chancellor’s party. So goes democracy, ladies and gentlemen! The voters punish you! The voters punish you with a primal force unique in the history of the Federal Republic. Panic spreads. One can virtually smell your fear! 

            Stephan Brander (AfD): Ja! It stinks! From the old parties’ fear! 

And what do you do about it? The higher the AfD’s polling numbers, the more maliciously you defame our party. That can again be certainly seen in this debate. You shrink from simply nothing. The level sinks to the unheard of. 

            Maya Wallenstein (SPD): It’s funny that you say that! 

            Stephan Brander (AfD): Strack-Rheinmetall!

Nothing better occurs to the FDP’s lead candidate for the European election. She designated the AfD as a dirty heap of filth, 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): She’s right, there!

and the AfD’s over 10 million voters as dirty blow-flies – I cite: “The greater the heap of filth,” – thus the FDP lead candidate – “the more so flies sit thereon”. Pfui Teufel! 

            Stephan Brander (AfD): Nauseating!

When the voters withdraw the power from you, then they are insulted as “blow-flies”. That is your understanding of democracy. 

            Alice Weidel (AfD): An affront to the voters! 

Yet, for this arrogance, the voters will punish you at the ballot box! 

At the same time, you fundamentally falsify our political demands. An example: We demand, as ever, the return or remigration of all migrants who according to law and statute have no claim to protection. 

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): You learned that in Potsdam, or? 

It has to do with around 300,000 finally rejected asylum applicants and the foreigners who only temporarily have benefit of protection as civil war refugees. 

            Stephan Brander (AfD): Quite right! 

In Syria, the war is over! 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): The war is not over! 

Thus, 600,000 Syrians need to return. Even Denmark, governed by Social Democrats, sends the Syrians home. That is the remigration which we demand. This remigration is not against law and constitution. It is the enforcement of law and constitution! We are the defenders of the state of law, and you are its opponents! 

You work here against us with the most malicious means. It has again been heard here today:  Politicians from the FDP and Union falsify our demands, particularly in regards the theme of remigration. And in the ARD’s “Tagesschau” was heard this week that under the term “remigration” the AfD understands the forced expulsion to the point of mass deportation of millions of people – 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): That is so!

thus your speeches, thus the ARD and ZDF. What an insidious campaign of politicians and journalists of the run-down left-green class! Yet, the citizens see through you! They no longer believe your nonsense! We experience the end of an epoch. We experience now here the end of the left-green dominance in Germany, ladies and gentlemen. 

Against this decline, Habeck, Kühnert & Co. defend themselves with all means. Thus even small, private debate clubs will be inflated into secret meetings dangerous to public safety; just as recently in Potsdam, a roundtable of businessmen, freelancers, who routinely meet for an exchange of ideas. This roundtable invited guests from the Politik, four from the CDU,

Stephan Brander (AfD): Hear, hear!

four from the AfD and two from the WerteUnion. What any speaker said or did not say cannot be associated with the CDU or the AfD. How desperate need one be to invent out of this a campaign against the AfD, as you here today are attempting? 

Ladies and gentlemen, the times in which such political illusionists had all the power are over. The wind turns. For Germany, something new comes. For Germany comes the AfD – whether you want it or not. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): Never again! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, November 16, 2023, Islamization

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/137, pp. 17298-17299. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Certainly in the last days has it become clear: The alleged conspiracy theory of an increasing Islamization of Germany is in fact a terrifying reality. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Such nonsense! 

The pictures of pro-Hamas demonstrations on German streets allow no other explanation: A situation over which you are now overheated, yet a situation which you have brought about. 

These demonstrations are only the current high point of a creeping Islamization of Germany which is expressed in many facets: So-called honor killings, forced marriages, yet which is also manifested in the symbolic occupation in day-cares and elementary schools by means of wearing the children’s head scarf, and in polygamy which unfortunately becomes ever more prevalent. All of this is the result of our own weakness, of a woke culture, which hates all that is one’s own and our cultural identity as well as our tradition. And this self-hate makes one susceptible: To welcome culture and to mass migration, 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Apparently you really need to hate yourself.

to children’s head scarves and to polygamy. It becomes high time to esteem one’s own, instead of sacrificing it to the foreigners. Otherwise, Germany becomes a caliphate. And we want no caliphate. We want a Germany that remains German, dear friends. 

Let us thus begin with the little ones. Let us ban the head scarf for children under 14 years in schools and day-cares. Since this head scarf for little girls is nothing other than a continual bodily and psychic disciplining. Free running, playing, swimming, etc., with it is scarcely possible. The writer Fatma Bläser, who as a child was herself forced to wear a head scarf, sees therein an “endangerment of children’s well-being”. The head scarf may become for young girls a “second skin” by which they are robbed of their freedom and childhood. It suppresses the children of today and makes them the suppressed women of tomorrow – and that may no longer be. 

And no, the children’s head scarf has nothing to do with religious freedom, since there is in Islam no religious precept for children to wear it. Until a few years ago, it was fully unusual in Islamic countries. 

The state of law is not allowed to tolerate it when little girls are thereby abused for transporting Islamist messages into our kindergartens and schools. For it is nothing other than political child abuse, what is happening here. This political child abuse needs to be forbidden; since it leads to parallel societies, it leads to the dis-integration of young girls and to the suppression of women. Such power demonstrations of political Islam have nothing to lose in Germany. 

These days, this becomes more clear than ever. The French and Austrians have long since recognized this and forbidden the head scarf in schools – in France besides, with the votes of the socialists. Let us thus defend young girls from the head scarf, and let us defend Germany from parallel societies! 

Polygamous marriages are also an expression of these parallel societies and they lead to a parallel justice. Where that leads to is shown in the many so-called honor killings. A stop to them must  be ordered. To them must be opposed law and order, and in fact our law and our order. Here, the statistical registration of polygamous marriages in Germany is required. Here, a general ban on religious early marriage is required. Here, polygamous marriages concluded in foreign countries need to be annulled. Here are required rigorous penalties for violations against the ban on bigamous marriage. 

Children’s head scarves and polygamy do not go in our country. Germany may no longer decay into a multicultural test laboratory; since it is not compatible with these imported conflicts. There must finally again 

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Please come to a conclusion.

be recollected its culture and tradition. Germany must finally again be German. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Jörn König, November 17, 2023, Cum-Ex Tax Fraud and Olaf Scholz

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/138, pp. 17617-17618. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear citizens. 

Olaf Scholz, our patron saint of every purposed lapse of memory, is indeed the chancellor with the tightest scandal entanglement in the history of the Federal Republic. We recall: There was once a firm, Wirecard, in Finance Minister Scholz’s area of responsibility – a gigantic scandal due to a lack of financial oversight. At the BaFin [Federal Finance Office], the chief and vice-chief needed to go. Its state secretary however remains untouched. In the good, old times of the Bonn Republic on the other hand, ministers resigned on account of shopping tokens. 

Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): Yet nothing new occurs to you! The speech you have already made here a couple of times!

Yet one scandal alone is not sufficient for Olaf Scholz. He still has, ja, Cum-Ex and lately a breach of the constitution in reserve. 

            Matthais Hauer (CDU/CSU): And G 20!

With Cum-Ex, taxes could be saved, and this doubled and multiplied. On the whole arose a damage of almost 36 billion euros for the German people. That was in fact illegal, yet it functioned for years. 

As Cum-Ex finally went up in smoke, what did Olaf Scholz as First Bürgermeister do? Instead of rendering a report, he met with one of those responsible for the illegal deals, Herr Olearius of the Warburg Bank, and he has evidently lied about that. Following this meeting, Hamburg’s finance administration then decided in November 2016, in the face of the legal situation, not to demand 46 million euros in taxes back from the Warburg Bank. 

Chronologically, it went further. One year later, a Finance Minster, namely of the Union, Wolfgang Schäuble, took care that the city of Hamburg not again renounce the 46 million euros. 

Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): That’s all old hat! There’s nothing there. On the contrary!

The leader of Hamburg’s tax office at that time was sent into early retirement, after Olaf Scholz became Finance Minister in Berlin. 

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): The AfD’s lies are long since overhauled! 

            Matthais Hauer (CDU/CSU): The SPD becomes quite nervous! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The truth hurts!

At the end of 2020, the bank finally paid back to the fiscal authority the demanded millions from the Cum-Ex business, plus interest. The Hamburg SPD is deeply entangled. Alone in 2017, at least four donations of the Warburg Bank or subsidiaries to the Hamburg SPD. Later, 215,000 euros in cash were found in a safe deposit of SPD comrade Johannes Kahrs. Nothing has to do with nothing. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): That’s the facts!

Since October 2020, an investigative committee finally pursues the Cum-Ex affair, first in Hamburg, then in Berlin. The state attorneys investigate many persons on account of suspicion of favoritism. In that regard in April 2021, the investigators noticed that there were e-mails which include for consideration effacements of data. There is the suspicion that in Olaf Scholz’s calendar from his time as Hamburg Bürgermeister information is lacking or was even effaced. 

The former member of the Bundestag Fabio De Masi could even later in August 2023 demonstrate that. 

In April 2023 the Union in the Bundestag, thus here, moved for a parliamentary investigating committee. A vote in plenary session was prevented by quite shabby procedural tricks. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): Ja?

Since probably the required 25 percent was quite surely present. 

Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): The only ones who here always seek to                         trick are you! Only, it doesn’t work out for you!

In July 2023, the lead state attorney in Cologne, Joachim Roth, placed himself in quasi retirement so as to forestall a dismissal. Were the investigations somehow too good? Four months later, in November 2023, this man is suddenly dead. 

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Ey, Leute!

In any case, in November 2023, laptops learn to run. Steffan Jänke, the SPD’s chief investigator, was submitted to the security testing of Hamburg’s Constitution Defense. He was nevertheless made chief investigator by the Hamburg SPD. This man takes into possession evidence laptops and presumably makes evidence on the side; notably from a safe. 

Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): He does not take into his possession! He is straightforward and impressively qualified!

To say it in the exactly suitable words of Olaf Scholz of a year ago in this place – he himself will have already again forgotten these words: Who believes that Olaf Scholz has nothing to do with all of this, he also believes in talking white rabbits. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland! Welcome to the Wonderland of the SPD where reality stands on its head! 

Herr Scholz, what will your legacy be? You lead a coalition of breach of the constitution, you demonstrably lie, you are involved in illegal machinations, and you have lost the trust of the citizens. Resign! Lord God, what needs to happen so that you finally take responsibility? 

            Norbert Kleinwächter (AfD): Herr Scholz is set in concrete in his                                         Chancellor’s chair! 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, November 28, 2023, Budget Crisis

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/139, pp. 17659-17660. 

Frau President. 

We experience historic weeks. Years of law-breaking and false decisions culminate in a budget crisis behind which is hid a crisis of government and also one of reason. The Chancellor’s conclusions from a compelling decision of the Constitutional Court are deviant and illogical. The government cannot in 2023 retroactively assert the continuation of an uncontrollable emergency situation which in 2022 itself had declared to be ended. That doesn’t go.   

It might have been strained as to whether this time it would be based on an energy emergency, or a foreign war, or a newly inflamed Corona rage, or the immediately impending over-heating of the Earth, – we have heard even that from Herr Kindler – or like a storm flood of the previous week in Schleswig-Holstein, it needed to be held out as an emergency basis for 2024. Yesterday evening came the solution: The war of February 2022 and even the Ahrtal flood of 2021 are the culprits for the emergency of 2023. All of this you discover directly after the decision and quite suddenly in November 2023, retroactive to January. At which embarrassing level should we here still be deceived? 

To expect a vote in favor of this reasoning in the Bundestag will similarly be the next breach of the constitution. Neither in 2023 nor 2024 arises an emergency situation in the sense of Article 115 of the Basic Law. One breach of the constitution is not healed by another, Herr Chancellor. And your demonstrative exit from the hall at this sentence in my speech therein alters nothing at all. 

You decided on, – you still adhere to it – in one of your first acts in office as Chancellor together with the new Finance Minister Lindner, the absurd 2021 supplementary budget in January 2022 and therein also the quite clearly unconstitutional accounting system. The special funds’ illegal credits of many billions should be the cash box for the implementation of the red-green goals altering society. The entire policy of the CO₂ hysteria energy guidelines, the mass immigration, the woke transformation of society, the hostility to industry, the Corona lockdowns costing billions, and gifts of weapons to foreign countries, would not have been thinkable without this money. 

Unfortunately, the Constitutional Court has withdrawn from you the financial operations basis just now, dozens of billions too late. For four years already, Germany is governed by financial emergency. There is a whiff of Weimar; from 1930, there was emergency government, mostly supported by emergency decrees. Since 2020, by the Groko and by the Ampel were generally declared “emergency situations”. In this way is the debt brake shredded, the Basic Law circumvented – the people need to know this! 

The Greens chief Ricarda Lang even demands the permanent suspension of the constitutional debt brake. Herr Mützenich has also plainly more than implied it. It is desired to declare a permanent emergency. “We will also need to discuss the suspension for next year, that is a debate which now…is next”, said Frau Lang. The Ampel stands before political, moral and financial bankruptcy. 

The country can be governed according to the constitution only with a fundamental change of course. The self-named democratic middle – the oh so democratic middle! – has with at least three budgets governed beyond the constitution. And the SPD delegation chief here in this place has a few minutes ago designated the Basic Law as a monstrance, as an embarrassing relic! Shame on you, Herr Mützenich! Where is the Constitution Defense when it is needed? Where is it? These are attacks on the free democratic basic order, here from this podium! 

One cannot be permanently pressured by a crisis. The decades-long, lies-of-a-lifetime policy of all the old parties cannot be compensated by debts and tax money. I here in this place in the Bundestag said exactly so at the proclamation of the first emergency situation in March 2020. It still does not go. 

Herr Scholz, from the beginning, your uncovered, deliberately illegal checks have even worsened the German misery. Had this money not been expended, Germany today would be not only financially but generally better, because then a mass of social-political nonsense would not have been able to be financed. And all of you have participated since the Kohl’schen checkbook times! 

The AfD is ready to clear away this debris, yet only when you put away the false decisions and make free the way for a new beginning, for finally a once more rational-, national-led  government. Then, despite the horrendous damages resulting from eight years of borders given up and billions of interest-bearing indebtedness which will burden the budget until 2070, 

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Please come to a conclusion.

exists the opportunity for a rescue of Germany. – My last sentence. – Yet initially required is your exit as a purifying catharsis which, yes as in classical tragedy, is the prerequisite for a healing. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Martin Hess, November 9, 2023, Islamism in Germany

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/134, pp. 16873-16874. 

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Political Islam in Germany posits the power question – and the Ampel coalition gives the wrong answer. That violent and aggressive Islamist groups in the last weeks move through our streets is a disgrace for our state of law and again proves that this Ampel coalition needs to be terminated as quickly as possible in the interest of our security. 

Yet also the CDU, which,  ja, governs in some of the Federal states, reveals, in a way shameful for our state of law, its incompetence in regards the fight against violent and anti-semitic Islamists. Its Minister-president in Nordrein-Westfalen, Herr Wust, pretentiously announced Islamist marches will no longer be permitted in the future, and not four weeks later Islamist enemies of the state in Essen and Düsseldorf have shown what is contained in the words of a CDU Minister-president; namely, simply nothing. They freely moved about, utterly unrestricted and thus is confirmed: The CDU is demonstrably not in the position to provide security in Germany. 

And when all others fail in regards defense of our democracy and our citizens, no way leads past the AfD. Since we are the only ones with the unconditional will to fight with all rigor political Islam. There can be credible defense of our society and our democracy only with the AfD. Especially the failures of the Ampel government are primarily founded on a fully failed security policy focusing on rightist extremism. Yet every citizen in this country with his own eyes sees in the last weeks what is in fact the security problem in our country; namely, as a result of your destructive migration policy, an Islamism becoming ever stronger in our country, which becomes ever more radical, ever more brutal and shows its true disposition hostile to the state, in which, as happened in Essen, it demands the struggle of all Moslems against the rest of the world and the proclamation of a califate. 

In the face of this massive danger for us all, the AfD as always has a clear standpoint which today is more important than ever. There must now be an end to your appeasement of political Islam. We must make clear, once and for all, to these enemies of the state who is master in the house [wer Herr in Haus ist]. And if you are not in a position to do that, then make room for those who can! The AfD stands ready. 

We must now finally posit a clear sign of strength. We must prove that our state is strong [wehrhaft]. I say to you how Islamist deployments are to be dealt with, which want to demonstrate Islamist power in our state and thereby commit massive punishable offenses: These are to be immediately terminated, the participants arrested and deported without delay. This besides applies to all Islamist hate preachers and those posing a danger. Our country, our rules! And who does not adhere to that, he has nothing to seek here. Where deportations are not possible, there the justice has to issue hard verdicts. Probationary sentences here do not suffice. Such people need to be in custody. 

And your false naturalization policy needs to be immediately corrected. From Islamists who still possess additional citizenship besides ours, the German is to be withdrawn without if and but. And for that, care is to be taken that in the future not one, single Islamist more receives German citizenship. 

Of course we also need to effectively prevent that Islamists continue to stream in great number into our country. For that, effective border protection which sends back all illegal entrants at the border, as demanded by the AfD since 2015, must finally be implemented. 

If we do not now act, political Islam will ever further spread in our country. Political Islam does not belong to Germany. In the interest of our children, we cannot and may not permit that. Therefore also any cooperation and any state promotion of Islam associations which represent, promote or support this ideology is to be immediately stopped and foreign financing is to be thwarted. When the state courts and finances it own enemies, it naturally not only makes itself ridiculous, but it also endangers and damages our democracy. 

            Till Steffen (Greens): Of that, we speak tomorrow in regards                                                    foundation financing! 

And please do not continually come to me with that the demands of the AfD would not be legally realizable. I can no longer listen to this thesis. Politicians are here so to create the legal groundwork required for the solution of a problem. In that you continually refuse this, your duty, you act as gravediggers of our state of law. For exactly that reason, the security of Germany is no longer to be left to you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, November 16, 2023, Budget

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/137, pp. 17323-17324. 

Frau President. 

The Federal Constitutional Court has announced a decision not surprising to us. The first of all Ampel budget, that is of 2021-2022, was declared unconstitutional and, what is more, null. I refer to our resolution motion of that time, Drucksache 20/488, and the 60 billion euro additional debt put through by you in 2022 in a 2021 supplementary budget law. There, we foretold not only the decision, but almost exactly the three-part grounds of Karlsruhe, 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Here, here!

not because we had had a crystal ball or excellent jurists, but because the legal situation was then already fully clear. We formulated in a motion then, word for word, the law “trespasses in direct, obvious ways against central, constitutionally anchored fundamentals of the budget law”. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Oh!

One thus actually can only declare with frank intent that the Ampel government, practically with its first act in office, simply and completely disregarded provisions of the Basic Law. 

The Ampel in 2022 wanted to unconditionally take up the 60 billion euros in a still possible 2021 supplementary credit, even though the year 2021 was already past and even though the expenditures based on a CO₂ ideology had not the least causal relation with Corona. 

It further is very positive that with the decision will now finally be brought to an end an accounting system of debts in special funds outside the debt brake, recognized by us as unconstitutional since its introduction. Herr Post, it is far beyond the 60 billion euros. 

The Finance Minister also now apparently acknowledges this. Yesterday evening, Herr Lindner said in the Budget Committee that the decision re-evaluates state practice. Well, actually not, Herr Lindner. It puts back on a legal footing the illegal state practice exercised by all of you of the old parties, inclusive of the CDU, since 2021. 

Read without reserve here the entire decision. The trick, used by all of you, of the multi-year formation of reserves for use at the pump after the official end of an emergency situation was in retrospect generally unconstitutional, thereby among others the 170 billion euros in credit-financed reserve supply for the WSF [Economic Stability Fund] in fiscal year 2022, and also besides the 26 billion euro formation of reserves in the EKF by the CDU-led government in a 2020 supplementary budget. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Oops!

Allow me to cite the strong words of a colleague directed then on July 2, 2020 to Finance Minister Scholz: 

“Today you present a second supplementary budget…it violates the Basic Law…the second supplementary budget encroaches upon essential constitutional principles like per annum…truth and clarity…I do not understand why one can make a career in the SPD in Germany only if one presents unconstitutional budgets…” 

He further said: 

I do not understand “why the CDU/CSU Bundestag delegation here becomes the assistants aide of a possible breach of the constitution. I hold that to be a gigantic failure, Herr Rehberg.” 

In parentheses: CDU. End citation. 

That was then exactly so represented by me and in the AfD motions. The citation however stems from today’s FDP delegation chief, Christian Dürr. It’s nice that you have found us! Unfortunately, the FDP in the Ampel immediately forgot its knowledge of that time, Herr Dürr. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Really quite embarrassing!

The 2024 budget put forward, due to the accounting practice used therein, will from the day of its issuance be constitutionally assailable. I thus ask you all: How long shall continue the abuse of such special funds with booked credits, not legal as measured by Article 115 of the Basic Law? How long do you want to drag this out? Already, it runs for years. 

In the climate and transformation fund, the decision – which is legally uncontested – mathematically and legally leads to that for your most important shadow budget the money will run out already in 2024. My delegation for certain, honestly said, does not find that so tragic, since it deals with almost only ideologically-based misappropriations. Following this decision, the currently presented Ampel budget cannot however now be passed as put forward. 

We demand, as already for long, the almost complete cancellation of all KTF [climate and transformation fund] titles, and we demand a new edition of the 2024 budget process under an accounting for the special funds credits and within the debt brake. 

In a government focused on Germany, no taxes for years would need be increased and – without failed euro rescue, Corona, energy and social ideologies – also no illegal debts be made. Finally make non-ideological policy conforming to the law for the national welfare of Germany! 

Hearty thanks. 

            Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): Congratulations on your ideological speech!                                Mein Gott! 

 

[trans: tem]