Gottfried Curio, October 19, 2022, Asylum Fraud

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/62, pp. 7004-7005.

Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The new law which softens the conditions for a permission to remain has the purpose of now conclusively burdening Germany with rejected asylum applicants who – under a series of known pretenses – were despite after five years not deported but tolerated. This so-called opportunity residence shall conclusively take from Germany the opportunity of once again at some time dislodging asylum fraudsters.

What are the keystones of this profligacy? In the calculation of this minimum residence were up to now not included demands of time in which the simply tolerated migrant – who demonstrated no basis for asylum – obscured if necessary his identity whereby he concealed the actually indicated country of deportation. These time periods of known concealment of one’s own identity will in the future be calculated as waiting until the hour for permission for permanent residence. Generally in the future, an unclarified identity shall no longer be an absolute hindrance – truly a step forward, only not for Germany, only not for friends of the state of aw, ladies and gentlemen.  

In the same sense shall still further hurdles for the residence permission be elided. If one withdrew himself from a planned deportation by means of a timely disappearance, that was previously a no-go; as of immediately, that is no longer a problem. Lawbreakers by this government are rewarded. This is only consistent with consolidating here in this country, despite everything, what concerns rejected asylum applicants – that is, people without a right of asylum. Here, the vanishing point of all regulation is of course the success of the deception, the reward of the lie.

Ladies and gentlemen, why by chance should asylum applicants up to 27 after three years here proceed to permanent residence?  Quite simple: Asylum and complaint procedures last somewhat longer. Thus here, just before a court has ruled on the factual standing or non-standing of the claim to protection, will be hurriedly fabricated a right to remain – which could where possible upset the decision of the legal state.

Integration courses should as yet naturally not be financed in cases of foreseeable non-recognition; perhaps for applicants from secure countries of origin. Even here shall now an integration state of facts be made possible on paper. Apparently for a single purpose: To then nevertheless in some way force through the actually contraindicated recognition. When the Germans themselves can no longer make the fire, their tax money is burned for illegals.

The passepartout argument, ever gladly produced by the government for the legitimization of injustice, of a skilled labor shortage is of course a joke for millions of unemployed European youth and a quarter million unemployed recognized asylum applicants – plus 400,000 employable Ukrainians – even though a bad one; indeed actually a mockery of these ‘normal” unemployed to whom it happens were preferred imported asylum fraudsters given the occasion.  

            Lamya Kaddor (Green): So there are good and bad unemployed?

Opportunity residence? Here the government accepts alone the view of rejected foreigners who have an opportunity to get along well in Germany. The priorities are clear. German interests are not.

Besides: Do you want ot attract people into a country where energy and dwelling space are scarce, are not available, no longer heated, and one may only cold rinse, if it goes according to the Greens? Does that not resemble the conditions unworthy of men on which account courts forbid deportations, say, to Greece? The local councils’ opinion confirms that the affected circle of persons has no interest in fulfilling the legal duty nor at any time themselves seriously want to integrate; a reason to remain in Germany is exclusively an economic benefit.  

Yet instead of a feminist foreign policy, Frau Faeser rather employs an anti-feminist interior policy and wants to unconditionally allow groups of immigrants into the country who often over-proportionately commit violent and sexual crimes. It is slowly being asked: Does the Ampel in the energy questions intentionally produce where possible so much murkiness so as to distract from the destructive plans which they have in the migration policy?

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!

These opportunities are all only at the cost of Germany, ladies and gentlemen, and it therefore in that regard must remain: No time extension for illegals!

I thank you.

            Lamya Kaddor (Green): Your party is the only one which sees it so!

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Rainer Kraft, October 20, 2022, Energy Security

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/63, pp. 7097-7099.

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues.

It is, ja, meanwhile a platitude that, due to a false energy policy, Germany has fallen into existential difficulties and that here reprimand of the Russian aggressive war simply helps nothing. Since already in the spring of 2019, thus three years prior to the Russian invasion, the German energy policy was quite appropriately designated by the Wall Street Journal as the world’s “dumbest energy policy”.

Throughout the country, the country arms itself against the dangers of unprecedented electricity outages or even many hours of electricity shutdowns; and that, even though Germany according to the statements of responsible ministers has at no time today an electricity problem. At the same time, since 2020, power plant capacities of 8 gigawatts for nuclear energy and around 10 gigawatts for coal-generated electricity have been withdrawn. That at least the latter was not so good an idea, the government has sufficiently demonstrated with the introduction of the replacement power plant readiness law. In parallel, Germany now enacts two laws. With one of the laws is demanded the ban on the operation of any coal power plant, and the second permits again the operation of precisely these coal power plants. What energy policy nonsense! The same will be expected of us in regards nuclear power. One law will need come about which permits one operation, even though by law the operation is nevertheless actually forbidden.

It appears similarly in regards to natural gas. To generate methane from so-called unconventional generation methods, colloquially designated as “fracking”, is forbidden in Germany. At the same time, the import of fracking gas generated in foreign countries has been massively increased. For that, an extra law was created, the so-called LNG acceleration law. This then again allows things which, from the right, would otherwise naturally be forbidden.

These examples show us quite clearly: The German energy policy is hopelessly stuck and will only be kept alive by means of makeshift cobbling. The costs for these fading patients, called an energy policy, are thereby so great that they are no longer able to be shouldered by a constantly increasing number of private and business purchasers. And the consequences are the emigration of value-creating industry and the impoverishment of the people.

What this and the preceding government obviously have not understood: Energy is the basis of our prosperity, it is for our economy and people as important as oxygen is for us; and for that, sufficient quantities have to be available and may not by means of costs unnecessarily burden the customer.

The energy policy of the past twenty years has however done the opposite of this. New forms of energy production were established with billions in tax money,

Timon Gremmels (SPD): And atomic was not subsidized, or what? Atomic power was always free of charge?

although no evidence existed for the technical feasibility of these ventures.

Before the replacement of tested methods of energy production, questions of the reliability and questions of the regionality of generation from a technical viewpoint ought to have been asked, this concept of the so-called renewables needed to be tested on a small scale so as to investigate the feasibility and real costs. In such an effort, it then would have been quite quickly noted that the price lay far above that of an ice cream cone and that the reliability of the supply of energy is faulty.

Timon Gremmels (SPD): The most economic form of energy production is photovoltaic, mein Gott!

Yet that was not done. Unprofessional, – here, certainly one cries out clearly – over-paid people without presentable credentials, with Luddite zeal wrecked all the technique and fundamentals of the energy basis of this country.

Last week we in the Bundestag had a visit of a Ukrainian colleague from the Verkovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament. The chairman of the gas committee, Andrei Zhupanyn, depicted for us in moving words how the Ukraine’s present energy infrastructure is being destroyed by targeted Russian attacks. The goal of Russia is obvious. The Ukraine, by means of the destruction of the potentialities for generating, distributing or even selling energy, shall be forced to its knees.  

For that, here n Germany, is required neither rockets nor bombs nor Iranian kamikaze drones; since the foundations of the energy supply are being demolished by the government itself.

Since 2011, for example, 14 modern nuclear power plant blocks have been idled,

            Bernhard Herrmann (Greens): Shame on you!

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Shame on you!

with a rated power output of 20 gigawatts – power plants which presently not only for the Ukraine would be finger-lickin’ good – and you have disconnected them.    

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): That is just unbelievable!

So as to make that clear, an example:

            Ingrid Nestle (Greens): Is your motion actually about the inquest commission?

If we still had 17 nuclear power plants, then the energy produced by these could be projected at approximately 180 terawatt-hours.

            Bernhard Herrmann (Greens): Come to the theme!

The entire production of electricity from coal and gas in the past year, 2021, was 240 terawatt-hours. And that means that two-thirds of the fossil energy production could have been replaced in the past year by nuclear energy. So much for your alleged climate saving measures. The same also applies for this year 2022, in which the government now begs after gas and coal. If we had nuclear energy, we need not send packing the town of Lützerath.

The energy carriers extolled by the government, wind and solar, have in 2021 delivered only about 150 terawatt-hours. And that means: After 20 years of permanent subsidization, these chance energies do not do it, even only for substituting for the performance of nuclear power plants, and here nothing is to be said of a replacement of coal and gas. These are the hard facts in your energy transition fairy tales.

I ask myself, where should all this lead to? Quite simply: The goal is that Germany again has an energy supply which corresponds to the guidelines of the Agenda 2030: Affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern. That will be the duty of this commission.

Because here the entire time come objections to the so-called renewables: No one questions the capability of wind industry installations and photovoltaic to be able to produce electricity. It would also be an outstanding and good thing if the amount of generation would be adapted to the corresponding consumption.

That unfortunately is as good as never the case. We therefore must continually grasp at expensive replacement measures so as to bridge the entire deficit.

             Bernhard Herrmann (Greens): Perhaps both can be done! Then it is better suited.

In the future then, energy which is generated shall be converted into a storable form, so as then to be activated in times of continual under-production. It is then necessarily the goal to generate vast additional amounts of energy so as to compensate for the thereby occurring losses. This is presently a megalomaniacal idea. Since not only should the present energy supply be replaced one for one, but, beyond that, giant amounts of energy should be generated with the only purpose of compensating for the gigantic transformation losses – into the hydrogen, out of the hydrogen, into the battery, out of the battery – thus, generating energy with the only purpose of again squandering it.

            Bernhard Herrmann (Greens): Nonsense!

            Norbert Kleinwächter (AfD): It is so!

            Enrico Komning (AfD): It is logical to me!

The evaluation concerns now only the electricity sector. Yet will be increased by many magnitudes when you shall, as planned, take hold of the entire primary energy sector. 

We confirm: The energy sector in Germany is in considerable need of reform. The government meanwhile tinkers with the symptoms in monthly reports.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): The symptoms are a Russian war of aggression!

On that account, it is time that the legislative branch gets back to the roots so as to re-direct onto the right track, onto the right path, the energy policy, the basis of this country’s welfare.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): That was nothing, to be sure!

            Enrico Komning (AfD): Everyone should have understood that!

 

[trans: tem]

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Boehringer, October 21, 2022, Shadow Budget and Energy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/64, pp. 7272-7273.

The government today still says nothing in the last reading of its draft law of how the planned economy, guaranteed to be highly bureaucratic and never to be legally implemented gas price caps should be installed. Who receives money? Which prices prices will be where capped? How will the operative be implemented? All of this in the first months will be regulated by decree. The draft law put forward is simply not ready for a decision.

A test question for you all, whether you have even read the laughably brief business plan contained in a law for the 200 billion euro fund: How much money does it foresee for the announced December payments? Now, I say to you: Here is exactly zero euros. The same for the gas price brake, the electricity price brake and additional support measures: Not a euro. Frau Esdar, one cannot block what is in fact not in the business plan. That simply does not work. There is nothing here to block. We have nothing, in any case not for 2022. And yet the Bundestag shall today agree that 200 billion euros in new debts shall be stowed in reserves in a purposeless, moreover completely undefined shadow budget. It would be absurd to bestow upon the government such a blank check.

The only correct way for such a law would be a 2022 supplementary budget for the really quite small sum which, as the planned December energy payment, will in fact be payed out to people and businesses. The Finance Minister – not present – nevertheless wants to put more than 20 times that in the 2022 budget, which then brings his twelve month balance of new indebtedness to a round 500 billion euros. And the Federal Audit Authority, as exactly for years the AfD, has stated: The accounting trick of the accumulation of reserves is very likely unconstitutional. – We say: It is unconstitutional.

The 200 billion euros is not required for 2022.Your appropriation today in the WSF [economic stabilization fund] serves only to get around the debt brake which at present is by luck still set aside. What at all is that? On this point also, the Union is dishonest; since the Grand Coalition still lead by the Union in 2021 found an additional trick whereby credits only in the year making the credit will accounted for in the debt brake, which in the Corona time was practically set aside and today still is. Luckily these tricks are now finally in Karlsruhe. Return to the law. That goes for all.

Our motion [Drucksache 20/4094] to be voted on today gives to you the opportunity for a careful budgeting of the required monies. Simply vote for it! Then the people and businesses who suffer under the present false policy can be assisted. For a merely symptomatic alleviation with tax money of the world’s dumbest energy policy, the shadow sums are much too high. Required is the causal aversion [ursächliche Abwenden] from the existentially dangerous energy emergency. We say this for months; even before the Ukraine war we have said this. In regards energy themes, finally listen to the rational voice of the AfD.

Hearty thanks.

            Otto Fricke (FDP): I find speeches with lace finish always good!

 

 

[trans: tem]