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]

Martin Reichardt, November 9, 2023, Children’s Basic Security

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/134, 16885-16886. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The Children’s Basic Security [Kindergrundsicherung] will be praised by the green Ampel as a heart’s project. Yet we all certainly know what actually are the heart’s projects of this green Ampel: Disconnection of the climate-friendly nuclear power plants, weapons deliveries to war zones, 

            Nina Stahr (Greens): The theme!

comprehensive de-industrialization of Germany and unbridled mass immigration. That is the political framework with which you drive families in Germany into poverty. Yet, for that, you will be rightly punished throughout Germany at the elections, and das ist gut so. 

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Pride comes before a fall!

The expenditures in connection with flight and migration alone in this year amount to 48.2 billion euros. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): At least!

For your big toss for families, you have a crummy 2.4 billion left over. And that is a scandal which speaks for itself. 

All of this of course becomes the more perverse as your entire social rhetoric is continually sabotaged by your own concrete policy. What you give to families on one side, you take away from them on the other side. The effect of your Kindergrundsicherung immediately dissolves  into nothing in the face of shocks which families receive in regards purchasing, the glance at the corresponding accounting and the energy prices, ladies and gentlemen.

So it is to be designated as one thing only, namely a labeling swindle. And here we have once again politically placed you, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Oh!

For the Kindergrundsicherung, it is so as for the Bürgergeld [citizens’ wage]. Much money has been inequitably pumped into imported poverty since 2015. The number of foreign children in receipt of transfer benefits has tripled since 2010. 

Kai Whittaker (CDU/CSU): Here, someone apparently has not at all peeked at the law! Had no desire to read the legal text, Herr colleague. Or what? 

Martin Gassner-Herz (FDP): It was too complicated for him! He understood nothing!

In 2010, it was 303,962 children, this year it is 935,000 children, most of whom come from Syria and the Ukraine. And I say to you: The opinion of the people in this country makes clear that the understanding for a policy which gives away the social benefits to all the world and drives one’s own people into poverty has finally been used up, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Crude nonsense! 

The Kindergrundsicherung is an additional instrument for the financial benefit of all the world and provides an additional incentive for migration into our moreover wasted social system, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Emilia Fester (Greens): Can you not for once think of something new?

In addition, the Kindergrundsicherung is an additional building block within the left-green reconstruction of society. It is in line with an entire chain of similarly mounted projects, as, for example, the so-called children’s rights in the Basic Law. All of these projects have one thing in common: The child shall be removed from the family social relation and transferred into the hands of a supposedly kindly, leftist political state. And we will not let you get away with that! 

            Anke Hennig (SPD): That is just ridiculous, what you are saying here! 

Nina Stahr (Greens): Because you do not tolerate that children have their own opinion! Inconceivable!

You propagandize for the de-coupling of the child from its parents. Greens and SPD especially want state command over the children’s beds. Yet we will prevent that, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Nina Stahr (Greens): We want that children have rights! That is a difference!

The families, the parents – that is for all of you just a burdensome intermediate level which hides a risk. You want that children be raised and financed not by their parents, but better by leftist ideologues, and exactly so raised as you would gladly have it. Yet this also we will not allow, ladies and gentlemen.   

            Stephanie Aeffner (Greens): You haven’t cast a glance at the law!

In conclusion, the following may be said: With this law, you go a further step along the way, well-known by you, to the disempowerment [Entmündigung] of the parents, the disempowerment of families, and the happiness of all the world. 

            Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Please come to a conclusion.

Yet we of the AfD will not participate in this. For we as the only ones say: Our families and our Germany first! 

            Annika Klose (SPD): Name one concrete example! Name just one!

Many thanks.

           Anke Hennig (SPD): Ridiculous! 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, November 9, 2023, Islamism and Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/134, p. 16794. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Today, on the 9^th of November, we need to state: Jewish life in the Federal Republic was never so threatened as today. A new Judenhass could be taken into Europe from the Near East because the leftist migration lobby opened wide the door. 

“How far will the European societies go so as to offer a place to a quickly growing Moslem minority which is opposed to social and cultural integration?” 

Walter Laqueur put this question ten years ago. The answer reads: According to those who understand Islam, until total surrender. 

At the Palestinian demonstrations we see these days Islamists and leftists united. This anti-semitism, which threatens and wants to wipe out real Jewish life and the existence of Israel, we find not only among the German working population. We find it in the mosques, in the Islamic assemblies and associations, in the leftist universities and in the Kultur operation infected by the BDS movement. 

This political axis reaches from the Hamas to Fridays for Future, from the Hezbollah to the Antifa, and from the PFLP to the Black Lives Matter movement. The consequences of this decades-long infiltration: Mass prayers at the Brandenburg Gate, the Neptune Fountain at the Rote Rathaus occupied, and in Essen, the caliphate proclaimed. 

And these idiots of Queers for Palestine and Gays for Gaza loudly applaud. Excuse me, how moronic can one actually be? In a Hamas state, no rainbow flags hang in front of the ministries. There, homosexuals hang from the construction cranes. 

Except to these deluded ones, it is obvious to everyone – cite: “Multiculti has failed, absolutely failed”. You know that is a citation from Frau Merkel from the year 2010. When Frau Merkel five years later opened the borders, she knew exactly what she was doing. And then she came to us with hollow phrases like “We can do it” [Wir schaffen das] or “Show a friendly face”; or, with a cold ignorance: It’s all the same to me whether I am guilty of the influx of refugees. Now they are here.   

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, now they are here. Hundreds of thousands of men – young, aggressive and dominant and – what you here never say, and to which there is always a protest – Moslem, filled with hatred of Jews, of unbelievers, and the West. And what does Interior Minister Faeser do in regards these hordes celebrating thousands of dead Jews? She invites the Islamic assemblies to an Islam conference so as to make a theme of what? Islamophobia. Inconceivable! 

Post-Merkel Germany no longer shows a friendly face, but a hateful grimace hostile to Jews. And for this performance, Steinmaier and Söder and Merkel are decorated with orders; it cannot be imagined. And now, where the AfD drives from success to success, the CDU comes around the corner with our motions: Robust border defense, maximum limits, deportations, deprivation of citizenship. If you want the people to accept these things from you, then you should not exclude Hans-Georg Maaßen from the party, but Angela Merkel. 

From the constitutional scholar Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde stems the thesis which is central to our FdGO [basic constitutional order]. It reads: 

“The free, secularized state lives on presuppositions which [the state] itself cannot guarantee’.

Since Islam in most of its expositions is not prepared to recognize the liberal, secular state – thus Böckenförde – the Politik needs to take care that Moslems remain in the minority. Those whom we see marching in our streets are never to be allowed to have the say here because they, with our democracy, can introduce Sharia. Democracy in itself is no common value, but democracy requires common values so it can continue to endure. Those who are demonstrating in our streets are those who presently endanger Jewish life, endanger the free, democratic, basic order and endanger the future of Germany. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, October 18, 2023, Gender Ideology

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/131, pp. 16301-16302. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

In the year 1817, thus around 200 years ago, the last teaching chair for astrology at a German university was closed. Who now thinks that the Enlightenment has finally triumphed, he is in error. 

            Maria Klein-Schmeink (Greens): You are evidence of that!

For a number of years, another pseudo-science has been on the march at our colleges. We speak today of the so-called gender research whereby in this connection the word “research” is a gross euphemism. Astrology could be better designated as a science than this gender ideology. 

The entire gender ideology, ladies and gentlemen, is based on the thesis, initially formulated by Judith Butler, that sex and indeed also biology may be freely chosen or – more precisely – constructed. When today you see on the internet pictures of young people who have undergone with the scalpel a sex change, these shocking, unhappy faces of mutilated children treated with puberty blockers, then you see modern human sacrifices brought there to the altar of the gender ideology. 

The acceptance of these trespasses upon the bodily inviolability increases with the medical-technical potentialities and – yes – with the money which can thereby be earned. Numerous clinics in the U.S.A., yet also in Germany, are already fixated on this business model. Gender ideology is thereby one of the present masks of Marxism. It could also be formulated: It is the theology of the woke left. It has nothing to do with medicine or science, ladies and gentlemen. 

The gender ideology besides also places in question the rights of women and homosexuals. A shrewd woman like Alice Schwarzer recognized this. She is therefore removed with hatred and spite from the left corner. 

Gender ideologues cannot answer the simple question of why the two sexes, which were allegedly invented by society and imposed upon people, exist in the animal realm. They also cannot answer how many socially constructed sexes there generally are and where they can be found. 

In Hamburg officially live just 31 people who designate themselves as diverse. An AfD delegation inquiry to the Senate has yielded this. 

            Martin Sichert (AfD); Hear, hear!

Nationwide, just about 400 people up to February 2021 have had themselves registered as diverse. That thus corresponds to .00047 percent of the population. 

            Maria Klein-Schmeink (Greens): Why then do you feel threatened?

We have thereby needed to be accustomed to how under a leftist discourse hegemony one wronged minority after another was discovered and then needed to be pampered by the taxpayers. Yet how could it actually come to that such a small and exotic fringe group is able to push forward into the center of all Western societies? 

With his fringe group, it is not as usual. Their lawyers are responsible for that, who themselves as usual have issued the mandate. For these lawyers, who exert this theme with an enormous moral extortion pressure on the Western public, conduct themselves like a woke left. They want to remove from biology the sex theme so as to use it as a weapon in a political struggle. 

            Renate Künst (Linke): Speak German!

The so-called gender research also has not any scientific yield; political proceeds are put forward throughout. Here primarily needs to be named the dictatorship of gender speech and the early sexualization of children. Both follow the ancient Marxist goal: The attack on the traditional family, the elementary foundation of bürgerlichen society. It’s about re-education. 

Scientists, ladies and gentlemen, concern themselves with what is. Gender ideologues are only interested in what should be. Thus for the gender ideologues it is all the same that gender speech is hideous and semantic nonsense. A Studierende, ladies and gentlemen, needs to bring her child into the world in an auditorium, otherwise she would be a student giving birth. Thus for the gender ideologues it is also all the same that in all surveys a great part of the population rejects gender speech. 

Yet for all that – a little glimmer of hope – some of the Federal States and administrations are on the way to no longer taking part in this nonsense. Ladies and gentlemen of the CDU, we also have hope in the CDU delegation in Thüringen which prepares a similar motion. We will of course vote in favor. Pleasant greetings to Herr Merz. The wall must go, ladies and gentlemen. 

The mental health of our children is also all the same to the gender ideologues. In the meantime, in school books also are biological facts contorted. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to it. Post-secondary schools [Hochschulen] need again to recall ideology-free research and teaching. Elementary education [Schulbildung] needs again to return to a value-neutral, age-appropriate investigation of knowledge on a foundation of fact-based recogntion of human propagation [wertneutralen und altersentsprechenden Wissensvermittlung auf Grundlage faktenbasierter Erkenntnisse zur menschlichen Fortpflanzung]. Gender is a dangerous, manipulative, unscientific nonsense. 

            Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Please come to a conclusion.

 Jawohl, Frau President. – Follow our motion [Drucksache 20/8862]. Let us deprive gender ideology of the the financial swamp. 

Many thanks, ladies and gentlemen. 

 

[trans: tem]

Dirk Spaniel, October 19, 2023, Electric Vehicle Subvention

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/131, p. 16445. 

Frau President. Right honorable viewers and listeners. Right honorable colleagues. 

As I read the motion, dear colleagues of the Union, I needed to look twice, whether it really came from you. 

            Klaus Wiener (CDU/CSU): It is printed on the upper left 

This is at the least an open coalition offer to the Greens. Here you want to maintain or again introduce the subventions for electro-mobility. 

Tilman Kuban (CDU/CSU, turned to the Greens delegation): You could just vote in favor!

Now you certainly know – you have already written it in your motion – that these subventions so far have indeed not worked. How then do you actually want to introduce with a motion something which has not worked? You yourselves write in this motion that there is mis-use, that we have promoted vehicles which were sold off in foreign countries, which we here in this country do not have in our fleet of vehicles. You write this in your motion. 

When we since 2016 so far promote electro-mobility with 10 billion euros

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Madness!

and have just 1.2 million vehicles in this country, then it needs for once be asked: What actually is awry here? And then you want to knock out by 2026 six billion euros for the charging infrastructure. I want to say to you here: It can be believed that climate change is hindered with German tax money; you do that. We do not believe that German tax money hinders, stops or in some way influences the climate change. Yet you believe it. Yet if it is believed, then one cannot nevertheless proceed and senselessly incinerate so much money. Electro-mobility’s CO₂ avoidance costs per ton of CO₂ – the Scientific Service of the German Bundestag says this – are from 800 to 1,000 euros per ton of CO₂ – 800 to 1,000 euros! In European emissions trading we are at approximately 80, 90 euros per ton. That is to say: You buy the ton of CO₂ avoidance at ten times the expense that it actually needs to be. For that, you can easily do away with the coal power plant CO₂, and indeed ten times as much. There, we are at 65 euros per tons of CO₂. You want the dumbest thing that can be  done with German tax money: You want the promotion of electro-mobility. 

The FDP besides ought to know better. They commissioned an estimation according to which it is even 2,300 euros per ton. That is to say: All of you here know: What you are doing here does not serve CO₂ reduction, does not serve the climate change. What you are doing serves for the impoverishment of the German population. 

The employment of your methods is absolutely unsuitable for reducing the CO₂ emissions, and it is absolutely unsuitable for making the population accustomed to electro-mobility. Most, 70 percent of users of electric vehicles, use this vehicle as a second vehicle. What you are doing is socially unjust. You redistribute tax money so that people who gladly want to have an electric auto as a second or third auto will have it in the future. 

That also applies to business. The well-to-do business can do it, and the poor, the not so well-to-do business cannot do it. All essentially use the electric vehicle not as a first vehicle but essentially as a second vehicle. Thus the method which you employ here is completely wrong. 

Ladies and gentlemen, when one is headed in the wrong direction, then one does not go faster – which you here want – but turns around. Electro-mobility is a wrong way. We are of the opinion that here you should rationally use the tax money. Preferably exert yourselves to achieve the CO₂ avoidance, when we at all do it in this country, with synthetic fuels, with openness to technology, which you besides are always preaching, dear colleagues. That should be our way. I can assure you of one thing: There will still be the combustion engine when your policy long since no more exists. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Rainer Kraft, October 20, 2023, Hydrogen

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/132, pp. 16606-16607. 

Right honorable Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

The speaking time is brief, yet despite that I need to begin with a joke which the colleague Spaniel told to me here – an engineer joke: The hydrogen, that was the technology of the future; the hydrogen, it is the technology of the future; and the hydrogen, it will also in the future be the technology of the future. 

Michael Kruse (FDP): You simply have nothing to do with a future!

I know: One needs know what a MINT-Fach [Mathematics Engineering Science Technology subject] is, otherwise one does not understand. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The Greens are still thinking!

Dear Union, your motion for a hydrogen start-up is completely out of date. The hydrogen strategy was of 2020, thus two decades after the beginning of the failed energy transition,  invented by irresponsible Union politicians so as to save what was no more at at all to be saved. The simple truth is: Hydrogen will not be able to store our electricity in sufficient quantities. 

Since then were billions of euros distributed in research of little purpose so as to ascertain what we all already knew: That hydrogen squanders enormous quantities of energy for manufacture, which we certainly do not have, its storage and transport ability is poor, and its employment quickly has every associated cost at an astronomical height. In the Pkw [passenger vehicle] area, despite your expensive resuscitation efforts, the hydrogen has already twice died. In the bus, trucking and trains area, hydrogen still appears in press articles. Yet the Union again rides a dead horse and thereby hopes to alter the laws of Nature. 

Yet in this the Union is not alone. The Ampel also pays its respects to the dead Gaul. There ultimately is tax money to distribute and posts to be filled with friends and acquaintances. The Ampel can thereby not generally disguise its own cognitive dissonance. According to the Ampel, the same hydrogen is inappropriate for home heating. Why? Because it is too expensive. Yet at the same time these same charlatans assert that the same hydrogen will be sufficiently economic to produce globally competitive green steel and green chemicals in Germany. That does not everywhere go together; thus you either deceive just yourselves, or yet deceive here your sovereign, namely the German people. 

While you thus merrily annihilate additional workplaces, the German citizens shall be forced to install heating pumps because these have a higher efficiency than hydrogen. Yet neither the SPD nor the Greens nor the FDP can guarantee the constant availability of electricity from wind and sun. How thus shall the people heat when Mother Nature someday leaves the German planned economy in the lurch? To that, the progressive coalition, ja, once again has no answer. 

This planned economy of yours also does not stop at the German border. With a new form of colonialism you want to generate energy in foreign states and allow transport back to Germany without a coverage of local requirements. Your entire post-colonial hypocrisy was well summarized by Antonio Osvaldo Saide, Vice-minister for Resources and Energy of the Mozambique Republic: That of course a nation, in which only every second generally has an electrical connection, can besides have no energy for export as long as not everyone in the country has access to economic energy. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): That is all the same to the Greens!

This position, which he communicated to us at his visit in Berlin, I and my delegation completely share. 

Back to the rainbow colors of the Union’s hydrogen fantasies. In regards all of your color scenarios is noticed that one color in your spectrum is lacking: The so-called red hydrogen, made from nuclear energy. Yes, that would have been a very good opportunity to produce hydrogen competitively and approaching a coverage of costs. Yet unfortunately you, ladies and gentlemen of the Union, have already refused twelve years ago the branch upon which you so happily want to sit. 

Dear Union, your hydrogen fairy tales stop here. Your motion does not perch in the realm of reality, but bestirs itself in a post-factual fantasy world. There is no energy for that from unreliable wind and solar power and there never will be. Your motion is pure wishful thinking and we therefore reject it. 

 

[trans: tem]