Markus Wagner, January 12, 2021, Corona Decree

Nordrhein-Westfalen Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 17/113, pp. 21-23.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

‘The Policy’s Broken Corona Promises”, “The Government’s Four Lockdown Fallacies”, “The Most Absurd Merkel Paper of All Time” – that is only a small selection of the headlines of past days.

Part of the media now reckons with you and your stiff-necked, allegedly without alternative lockdown policy. Your nonsensical lockdown reasoning says: We must arrive at an incidence value of 50. – Concerning that, you know quite precisely, ladies and gentlemen: That’s not right in winter. Herr Laschet, – he is not here – I demand of you: Stand here at the microphone and explain to me, explain to the people, how you in winter want to arrive at an incidence value of 50. – You can’t.

If that shall remain the basis of your policy, we will drift from one lockdown to the next until the virus is rolled back quite alone by the better weather in the spring. Until then, you crank up the printing press and mortgage the coming generations.

“An end to that!” – not only the Green Oberbürgermeister Boris Palmer and we of the AfD demand that, but also ever more professors and scientists. If the government maintains a goal of incidence in the 50s, this lockdown will last many months. That may be the wrong way; according to Palmer: “Enough now. We must live.”

At the beginning of February, we must again take control.

With this arbitrary incidence of 50, you are causing part-time employment, job loss and a wave of insolvency. That will permanently change the economic structure of the inner cities. Many of the small are not getting by, which means we get still more chain concerns and still more concentration on quasi-monopolies like Amazon & Co.

And: You are cementing the debt situation. – As a party of the social market economy, we cannot tolerate that. We also cannot tolerate that people suffer unnecessarily. And they suffer from an existential fear. They suffer from loneliness. They suffer from depressions. There are other illnesses, cancer or heart disease for example, at which scarcely any of the policy people are looking. Where are the exertions of policy? And there, where those over 80 years in the old-age homes have actually died of Corona, you have failed, ladies and gentlemen.

All of this divides our society. And the division deepens as every couple of weeks you tell us what allegedly is uniquely correct. All who question that, each scientist or doctor, is then allegedly a Covidiot or worse; like a, for example, Nazi. A couple of weeks later, or only days later, is then again the opposite correct, allegedly.

Now, it is something new that I alone may meet my neighbor, yet not together with my wife, whereas my neighbor may meet me and my wife. And if it goes according to the SPD, this regulation shall then control even in dwellings. Yet at Aldi and on the train, might we all of us then again in common meet. You apparently do not quite follow this logic, ladies and gentlemen. I must admit to you: That goes for me too.

The entirety is almost as senseless as the 15 kilometer rule, which you, Herr Laschet, first concluded with the Federal government, then next shoved off onto the localities in NRW, only to then yesterday nevertheless introduce – the 15 kilometer rule.

Herr Laschet, who should still take seriously such a policy? Who should here actually still display trust?

Not only is this rule not medically based – it is on that account constitutionally more than doubtful – no, it will, like so many rules in a trust-destroying, whoa and go proceeding, be driven to the wall. It shall then be for the citizen to endure and perceive where you are lacking in insight.

Ladies and gentlemen, that’s not right. That is not the policy of a statesman whom people can trust. That is abysmal.

Yet it happens that in the ranks of the oh-so-wise establishment politics are those, scolded by everyone, who may see: The emperor has no clothes.

And in the school policy. Federal Education Minister Anja Karliczek at the end of September said, “A further general school closing is not under consideration.” Ah, ja.

And the FDP school minister here has already advocated so many opinions on this that one becomes dizzy. The FDP here moreover is a total loss, apart perhaps from Herr Kubicki.

Yet one citation: “I can say to you that with today’s understanding, no more hairdressers would close, no more retail business would close. That will not happen again.”

Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn said that in September.

So much for Jens Spahn’s judgment capacity. What a self-unmasking…

And the next:

“We are ordering a four week therapy…If we now manage well in the communities, then we have a good basis upon which to get through the winter. It is no perpetual cycle, as per the motto: One month lockdown…and then again, and then again and back…”

Bavaria’s Minister-president Markus Söder said that at the proclamation of the lockdown light on October 28.

            Helmut Seifen (AfD): Who is a teller of fairy tales!

It is just simply wrong how Söder’s failures lead to an ever more grotesque self-radicalization of the political showman. And here Kubicki is right when he says: “Gott schützen uns vor Markus Söder”, ladies and gentlemen.

“New horror numbers show the Federal government does not begin to have a grip on Corona.”

Thus claims the “Bild”, after all actually close to you.

Although since November Germany is in lockdown, figured on the present number of residents in this country, more people die of or with Corona than in most of the EU states, and more than in Donald Trump’s U.S.A.

Ladies and gentlemen, so often I would have preferred not to be right. You do not want to hear, you allegedly always know better. For months, my colleague Dr. Vincent and I again and again cite scientists and doctors with good arguments. In that regard, you were defended only by your affiliated political-media complex.

Yet the last days and weeks give hope. Since the reportage begins to turn and becomes more differentiated, and it begins to inquire and ever more medical people have the chance to say that they see quite differently what Drosten, Merkel and you, Herr Laschet, hold to be the last word in wisdom.

For long I have here in house – initially, relatively alone – with my delegation fought for the clear and meaningful focusing on protection of the elderly and the ill, and to which again and again experts – the experts to whom you do not wish to listen, like professors Streeck, Schrappe. Kekulé of the Federal Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians and the many medical central organizations – have given a voice.

We now finally have movement in the media. The unity opinion begins to waver. Moreover, at least the “Welt”, and the “Bild” and yesterday “Hart aber Fair” now comply with what is called a journalistic ethic. For long has the Fourth Estate – in part financed by compulsion – understood itself not as a controller of government but instead as its messenger.

Now however may be read – quite along my course – :

“The epidemic was unleashed by a virus, that is clear. Yet for the high numbers of deaths, exclusive of the elderly and aged, the policy bears the responsibility.”

Ladies and gentlemen, Professor of Medicine Matthias Schrappe, former vice chief of the Federal government’s Experts Council for Health says that.

The government has “against competent counsel decided for itself to only pursue lockdowns and to relinquish targeted protective measures for the elderly.” – Thus, Professor Schrappe. That has “crashingly failed”, the consequences being “catastrophic”, a terrifying result. And he is not alone in that verdict.

The fact is: In December, 86% of all Corona deaths came from care homes. In NRW also, over half of the dead came from care homes. Nevertheless, the homes still – still – have too few resources to consistently test co-workers and visitors.

You base the stringent protective measures on the high number of Corona deaths. Yet there where people actually die of or with Corona, your lockdown measures do not function.

For reasons of time, I unfortunately cannot go into the vaccine chaos. But it is a disgrace for our country. Germany is behind – and in Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen is also in regards vaccination, again as so often, in the lower ranks – the oh-so-evil Great Britain, U.S.A. and Israel.

The former SPD Oberbürgermeister of Kiel wrote in the “Welt” – I cite:

“The Chancellor and her Minister for Health Jens Spahn from the beginning of the Corona crisis have set for themselves a false, because unattainable, goal: They are fighting the sheer number of infections. For that the basic rights of all citizens will be limited, for that has parliamentary government itself been practically given up, for that will firms be sacrificed which cuts off the development possibilities of children, singles are sentenced to a quasi house arrest, and, far outside, even the toboggan runs will be blocked by the police.”

Ladies and gentlemen, when the police no longer hunt criminals but children on toboggans, when no one no more knows where and with how many of his own family he may now visit, then you are gambling away the trust of ever more people.

For almost a year, the people overwhelmingly conduct themselves in exemplary fashion. Many have worries as to how they shall pay their accounts and rents, worries of how to care for and educate the children, worries concerning their grandparents.

Corona is an imputation. Precisely on that account however may your policy be no further an imputation. Our country can be better. But you must finally worry about that.

I thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Albrecht Glaser, January 14, 2021, Property Tax

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/204, pp. 25748-25749.

Thank you, Herr Vice-president. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

With all respect, dear colleague Müller: I think both realities have their justification. It cannot be said: The one pauses as long as until the other is dealt with.

In the FDP delegation’s submitted draft law – this is in fact an old and long enduring problem – will be demanded the overdue abolition of the property tax. For that, the FDP submits a substantive motion with six additional demands, of which – this I must nevertheless add – nearly all have already been advanced by the AfD in earlier motions.

Christian Dürr (FDP): Such rubbish, Herr Glaser.

The topic of the property tax was volatile since ever and a day because the dialectical materialists wished to thereby put to work their great project of changing society – ever yet and still today. In addition, the lower sentiments of envy and ill will are thereby allowed to be steadily heated. The Federal Constitutional Court in 1995 convincingly established according to tax theory and constitutional law that the then current property tax may no longer be collected. Thus, what to do?

At best, what the professional tax literature has to offer may be cited as follows:

Against the re-introduction of a recurring property tax already speaks the undeniably thereto united inequality of evaluation which alternative designs of a property tax also cannot avoid. Beyond that, the Federal Constitutional Court, according to the concepts of protection of property of Article 14, sets close limits on every property tax. After that remains, so write the authors, for the property tax along with the income tax only a narrow area of use. Who wishes to leave aside business assets in favor of a limited property tax on private assets further narrows this area. The one-sided erosion of the basis of apportionment then occurring would increase the equality deficit and contribute to further chaos in German tax law. There is no convincing basis of justification for the property tax. It here corresponds not only to tax justice but also to economic reason not to re-activate the property tax. As a sign of economic and legal rationality, the property tax should also be repealed in law. – End of citation.

Ladies and gentlemen, the FDP motion rightly points out…that of the 36 OECD countries, in recent times only 4 still collect a property tax.

            Stefan Schmidt (Greens): We after all also collect none!

That is the state of the art, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, and who opposes himself to that has a few problems and will generate many problems.

The AfD already decided this question in its 2016 principle program. Therein is the abolition of the property tax, and we stand by that, because as a tax on Substanz it undermines the fundamental of our order of property in this country – and to that naturally belongs the business world.

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, for the solidarity surtax, and likewise the property surtax, the AfD has repeatedly presented motions to abolish, they being limitations of the personal use of property. Who wants a world and a country of property owners must remove this brake on the 85 percent of the population who desire their own home. We also earlier, and without success, demanded the dynamization of the tax allowance on savings. At that time, the FDP did not vote for it.  

The topic “ re-establishment of freedom from taxation on declared profits from capital assets income after a holding period” is likewise an AfD position. We are thereby for the rule in effect until 2009 – and thus under the regime of the Grand Coalition; namely, one year, while the FDP, clearly more modest, demands a holding period of five years.

And the requirement of consideration for complete loss in regards commercial paper, such as the worthlessness of options – is urgently necessary for the tax system. In a euro world in which there is no longer any interest from government bonds, and likewise no long-term accumulation of assets is even possible,

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Please come to an end.

asset formation by means of shares and derivatives can indeed also become more difficult, should nothing be done.

It would be nice – last sentence, Herr President – in the further progress of the debate over the whole palette of these topics, to finally grapple for once with a tax systematic and with reasoned asset policy arguments. We of the AfD

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: It is done now.

will constructively collaborate on that, so that in the area of fundamental tax policy something may happen which in three years in this Bundestag has not happened.

Hearty thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Alexander Gauland, January 21, 2021, Border Control

AfD Kompakt, January 21, 2021

What Chancellor Angela Merkel evidently understands as a threat is for many in Germany, yet also in Europe, a glimmer of hope. With control of its borders, Germany would finally create the prerequisites for more domestic security in the entire EU.

That with this announcement Merkel seeks to extort from European neighbor states adherence to her way of fighting the pandemic, at the same time allows to arise doubt that she is in fact  convinced the hard lockdown enforced by her in Germany is yielding the desired result. Otherwise, she would not need to make diplomatic threats but could trust that the way driven by her is leading to success.

Perhaps the pandemic, besides all its horrors, in the end at least has something useful: The legend, that the German borders were not to be controlled and that we therefore must let anyone enter who wished to come to Germany, as since 2015 Merkel ever again told us, is finally off the table. We will at anytime remind the Chancellor and her successors of that, if it is necessary.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Martin Hess, January 14, 2021, Preventive Custody

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/204, pp. 25630-25632.

Colleague Frei, permit me a prior remark: Deportations produce nothing so long as our borders are not effectively defended.

Right honorable Herr President. Honored colleagues.

Ten weeks ago, a wave of Islamist terror rolled through Germany and Europe and claimed numerous fatalities. Our delegation then offered this motion [Drucksache 19/23951] to take into preventive custody all Islamists posing a threat [Gefährder] who were not to be deported or who were subject to deportation. Against this you displayed your usual perplexity rhetoric, yet you did not act. Precisely this the citizens of this country no longer accept. They want a government which finally acts instead of only speaking. We demand precisely this with our motion [Drucksache 19/25833].

We nevertheless attained with our motion that the Interior Minister pleaded for a deprivation of liberty [Freiheitsentzug] for Gefährder one week later in a video conference with other EU interior ministers. Thanks to the engagement of the Federal Criminal Office, there shall soon be a unified, Europe-wide definition of Gefährder and those Gefährder shall then also be included in the Schengen information system. Precisely this is long overdue and precisely this I had already demanded in this house on May 17, 2019. It is nice to see that the AfD works.

Unfortunately we cannot secure with sufficient strength from the opposition that the war on Islamist terror is finally to be won. Herr Minister – this I must say clearly – you do not do it or do not want to; the last months’ experiences have shown that to us. You indeed had brought our central demand, nationwide preventive custody, into the interior ministers’ conference, yet you there obtained no concrete solutions. The conference’s conclusions clearly indicate that. You and your colleagues of AK II –that is, work circle II – in fact issued the order to examine the preventive custody demanded by us. From the protocol notice, however, it is to be inferred that you and some of your colleagues wish to again shift this responsibility back to the countries. Herr Frei, we nevertheless know that thus the custody can never be implemented.The splintering of police law would further increase. Left-green-red interior ministers would prevent the implementation of custody and the Gefährder would remain at large and could continue to pursue unhindered the plans of attack. That, Herr Minister, is not just incomprehensible, that is inexcusable and unacceptable.

The CSU in all seriousness now demands the employment of ankle bracelets so as to prevent attacks. The ankle bracelets, which besides have not been of use for years, shall thus be the solution. They do improve to a maximum the surveillance yield in regards the movements picture or to contact persons, yet at no time does the ankle bracelet prevent even just one attack, because the Gefährder can continue to move about unhindered. Therefore stop constantly selling the ankle bracelet as a solution. It is not a solution and it will never be a solution.

You of the CSU then even demand the preventive detention. Dear colleagues of the CSU, the term “Gefährder” comes from Gefahr [danger]. A threatening danger is not fought by waiting until someone commits a criminal act with which he presents evidence of his Gefahrlichkeit so that he is to be taken into preventive detention. Who in regards the fight against Gefährder waits until a criminal act, he disregards exactly those same Gefährder who so far have not appeared to be criminal. We must act before it comes to criminal acts, dear colleagues. Therefore, this proposal also by far does not suffice. And stop constantly throwing sand in the eyes of the citizens.

We all know that since September 11, 2001, at the latest which challenges Islamist terror presents to us. Despite that, your parties, this government, have undertaken nothing effective. On the contrary: You have continued with your policy of open borders – we are again on point, Herr Frei –and allowed terrorists and Gefährder in great numbers into our country. One of them, Anis Amri, committed the terror attack on the Christmas market on the Breitscheid Platz in 2016 and murdered eleven persons. An additional Gefährder murdered a man with a knife attack just last October in Dresden. These assaults would have been able to be prevented if this government would have moved timely, effective measures to fight terror.

There cannot be two opinions on the present state of the Islamist danger. We in Germany presently have over 28,000 Islamists, 12,500 Salafists – that is an increase of 87 percent since 2014 – and 619 Islamist Gefährder. I must correct you, Herr Frei: Only 242 of these Gefährder are at large. According to Europol, we in Europe between 2007 and 2014 had 16 terror attacks with 8 deaths, thus one terror fatality per year. This has gravely changed: Between 2015 and 2019, it was 94 terror attacks with 374 deaths, that is 74 terror fatalities per year. And the Rizin attack in Cologne would have produced 13,500 fatalities and even so many wounded if our security authorities had not prevented this attack in time. I therefore appeal to you with all emphasis: Finally implement this Federal custody of Gefährder before it again comes to a deadly terror attack in Germany.

            Thorsten Frei (CDU/CSU): Yes, but that cannot be.

The BKA president in 2015 clearly said it is impossible to completely control all Islamist Gefährder and the number then was only half so high. The president of the Saxon Constitution Defense after the attack in Dresden clearly and distinctly stated that even a complete control does not prevent an attack. Despite that, you stick your head in the sand.

Stop this ostrich policy! We all here in this sovereign house are obligated to the best defense of our citizens. Finally fulfill this obligation. What we now require are concrete measures instead of endless discussions and examination orders.

Our motion serves precisely this. Finally let acts follow your words. Do not deny to our people these long overdue defensive measures and vote for this motion.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]