Malte Kaufmann, June 26, 2024, Eco-socialism

AfD Kompakt, June 26, 2024. 

The mood in the German economy is long since desolate. The situation becomes further critical. The energy costs are much too high, the bureaucracy insanity is no longer to be endured. Who does not flee to a foreign country, needs in Germany to either struggle for survival or close the business. The overall conditions are no longer suitable; they were for years consistently run down.   

I do not believe that a call to reason by Economy Minister Habeck could in any way suffice and put in motion a turnaround. He has much too far set out on his wrong way and thereby fantasizes of beautiful numbers far from reality. In the view of the AfD delegation, Germany urgently needs to forsake the path of the destructive eco-socialist transformation, and for that requires a capable Economy Minister. The free market economy alone creates the correct overall conditions for business, secures workplaces and increases prosperity. Habeck’s eco-socialism destroys them – we will rebuild them. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gottfried Curio, June 13, 2024, The Politics of Deportation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/175, pp. 22574-22575. 

Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

After an asylum applicant, rejected for ten years, wanted to murder a critic of Islam and thereby killed an intervening police officer, those responsible follow one after another in the casting of smokescreens. For the longest time, the Afghan was not removed from the country by the parties of the Merkel Groko. Guilty of his illegal lingering were Union and SPD, then also Greens and FDP. 

The Chancellor, who since his grandiose announcement of deportations in grand style, which never came, is especially practiced in long distance smokescreens, again got underway such a  deception maneuver just before the EU elections: The most serious criminals and those posing a danger were to be deported to Afghanistan. Naturally just hot air, not having consulted with the Green coalition partners who want to give up no illegal migrants. 

The result: Sweden and Turkey do deportations, the Ampel does not want to. And not only that in regards the erstwhile offender of Mannheim simply nothing would be brought – no, the inconsequence was already pre-programmed. Since then if a person can be deported to Afghanistan, then naturally this can and must be done with all rejected asylum applicants. Yet to express this was too daring even for Scholz, the sham bomb disposal expert. Apparently, it will saved for the week before the Bundestag election, ladies and gentlemen. 

If one indeed wants to deceive, then needs be more skillfully intonated what the Union brings us. Which says in a motion, in any case in the latest motion, that they presented just a return of the culpable to Afghanistan. Only, what is to be done? Elections are already at hand. It therefore quite suddenly occurs to you, after endlessly many murders, rapes and knife attacks: Perhaps something real must be demanded. – And since the AfD, after an entire series of state falsehood propaganda, grows and grows and grows, 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): Na, ja! Since January, rather shrinking, shrinking,                             shrinking!

what does the Union say? Quite clear: We need to copy still more from the AfD! 

Ladies and gentlemen, quite suddenly the Union notices: Even those from Syria who have been rejected nevertheless need to be deported. That is done neither with red nor green but only with the AfD. 

Quite suddenly they notice: Border controls, which deserve the name – in a word: including refusals – would perhaps even be a good thing. Quite suddenly they notice: The citizenship law is not allowed to be further watered down. All of this is done neither with red nor green, only with the AfD. 

Julian Pahlke (Greens), turned to the CDU/CSU: Na, where remains the Union’s distancing to that? No one reports!

Therefore is fully clear the result in regards the theme of deportations: The SPD wants to fake it, the Greens want to entirely prevent it. Only the AfD will actually enforce it. Thus what does a Union want, which explicitly does not want to form a coalition with those demanding an enforcement but prefers the parties of fakers and preventers? Does this Union want to enforce or fake or prevent? I think the answer is clear and the citizens also know this! Only the original stands for actually enforced deportations. Only with the AfD will the security situation again become tolerable for our citizens. Only with the AfD finally comes the so urgently required migration change. 

 

[trans: tem]

Frank Rinck, June 6, 2024, Farming

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/172, pp. 22279-22280. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. Dear fellow citizens. 

Today it is once again about further complicating the German fertilizer law for our farmers, and introducing yet more bureaucracy – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): Nein!

but one thing after the other. To begin with, it must be stated – and this we may not forget – that the problems deliberated here were first generally produced by the old parties. A faulty and very questionable nitrate monitoring network provided that just these nitrate values, upon which we here proceed, have come to an end in Brussels. 

            Karl Bär (Greens): That’s not in the monitoring! 

Unfortunately, this is made a theme only by us, and unfortunately none of you appear to see a need for a correction. 

Ladies and gentlemen, everything which was passed here in the last years in regards agriculture policy generally needs to be on the test stand. And do not worry: Once we of the AfD govern, we will correct all of your failures. That is a promise upon which the farmers in the future can rely. 

Basically, it can be said that the good,  professional practices of our farmers and their economic interests do not allow that more fertilizer comes into the field than the crops require. It all of course costs money and resources. And, ladies and gentlemen, no farmer squanders his money or resources; they want to work economically. If you would for once pass some time with real professionals – and I mean practicing farmers – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): We do that!

and not with whichever demagogue from your associations, you would know that. Yet what have you here today to decide? It’s about the introduction of a nationwide monitoring of active ingredients for fertilizer supply.  

Till Steffen (Greens): Don’t fall asleep up there! Man, man man!

Besides in our view, we could in fact say, in so far as it would be connected, that demonstrably clean water agricultural operations in red areas would finally be freed of senseless fertilizer duties. Under-fertilization is besides an exhaustion of the soil, and that is actually also a form of expropriation of the affected farmers. Nevertheless, of that there is in your draft law no word to be found. Your motion indeed sets this as a goal; yet it’s spongy there, that then this should be first clarified with the EU. 

Ladies and gentlemen, that is unacceptable. If the active ingredients monitoring does not here include distinct goals, then it is to be rejected; especially since, for the first in line operations, the monitoring means new bureaucracy burdens and documentation obligations. 

With that, we come then to the next point, the planned expansion of the material flow balance in §11 of the fertilizer law; you now call it “nutrient balancing”. Ladies and gentlemen, the material flow balance shall in the future be obligatory for all arable farms and bio-has facilities. Why is that actually? That is neither asserted in EU law, nor is it purposeful when at the same time shall come the active ingredients monitoring. 

The experts at the hearing – this, the colleague Staubinger already said – have distinctly indicated that this is not sensible and brings with it no recognizable uses at all. The material flow balance is therefore, and in view of your robust promises of deconstruction of bureaucracy at the farmers’ protests, to be eliminated in its entirety. 

Now on that we have plainly heard that this besides costs all otherwise than much money. Ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly not as if your draft law costs no money: A quarter of a million euros will each be assessed in the BLE [Federal Institute for Agriculture and Food] – for that, three new positions will created; thus then come three new green ideologues who will make it still more difficult for the farmers – and a half million euros for the Julius Kühn Institute. 

Karl Bär (Greens): These people shall certify EU fertilizer products with CE labels. Yet that is fully unrealistic!

I can well imagine what happens with this money: Still more green ideologues will then be employed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, you of the Ampel remain true to yourselves with your destruction of our German agriculture. The draft law put forward is just one additional vexation for the German agriculture. And we therefore reject it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Nicole Höchst, June 20, 2024, Boys in Schools

AfD Kompakt, June 20, 2024. 

Boys appear in nearly all statistics worse than girls. And the number of boys without a graduation certificate is clearly higher than that for girls. Thus in the year 2020, 62 percent of students without a high school completion certificate were boys. 

A specific and expanded support of boys in the schools is required, and it is not allowed to be placed in the narrative of the eternally oppressed little females. We of the AfD Bundestag delegation have already many times referred to this in our initiatives; for example, the inquiry “Possible Disadvantage of Boys in the German Education System” (Drucksache 20/7105). And from the answer of the Federal government to this minor inquiry, it was evident that, up to that point in time, there was no research on the school problems of boys. 

We of the AfD Bundestag delegation therefore demand that there needs to be research adapted to the school problems of boys, since in the named PISA study, especially in written expression, girls clearly achieved better results than boys. 

From the occupational education reports and from the PISA results, we know who these boys are. The left-green course settings compel the situation and disadvantage boys, especially boys with a migration background. This school policy steals the future of the boys in our country. 

The AfD Bundestag delegation demands an end to this policy and the beginning of research into the school problems of boys – and right now! 

 

[trans: tem]

René Springer, June 12, 2024, Social Benefits Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/174, pp. 22520-22521. 

Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear guests. 

Before us lies a motion of my delegation [Drucksache 20/11745] with which we pursue the goal of opposing abuse of social benefits. We demand immediate measures against commuter migration. What is commuter migration? Nothing other than social tourism. That means that foreigners come here to Germany, apply for Bürgergeld and other social benefits, then return home, and there do with the money as always; all of this at the cost of the German taxpayers. 

If the Social Ministry is asked, then one gets either the answer: “There is no problem”, or: “It is a matter of quite few single cases”. We however do not believe in single cases; for one, because we no longer at all believe this Federal government, and for another, because massive evidence says otherwise. 

Since 2016, there are media reports of Syrians, who have a protection status here in Germany, drawing social benefits and yet then driving home on vacation. Recently, the Münchener Merkur reported on a Algerian of 56 years who lived in Bavaria, drew social benefits – namely, Bürgergeld – then had gone to Algeria and forgot to report to a job center. He received 13,900 euros. The Welt recently reported on a married couple from Nigeria, who lived for years in Nigeria and received Bürgergeld, and in fact 33,000 euros. The Focus recently reported on a Ukrainian family who came to Germany seeking protection, then however returned home and there received 40,000 euros in Bürgergeld. 

            Markus Kurth (Greens): Then inquire at the job centers there!

Every day, 50 flex busses drive from Berlin to Kiev. One needs be crazy to believe that not a single one of the 723,000 Ukrainians receiving Bürgergeld sits therein. 

With this government, and with you here in hall, there is no motivation to oppose social tourism. You lead this country like a banana republic, that is the problem. 

            Marian Schieder (SPD): We want to oppose corruption of members!

An AfD-led government would effectively prevent the social tourism. How would we do that? By increasing the degree of contact at the job centers and indeed by a personal audition every four weeks. We would introduce an identity test by means of a finger-printing procedure, and it is an absurdity that there has not been that up to today. I get letters from job center workers who report from Berlin-Kreuzberg. There, fully veiled women stand before them and say they are whoever, and the workers must believe that because it is not allowed to require the veil to be lifted. How shall it be possible to ascertain the identity? 

We demand in regards suspicion of absence to conduct a test search at home. We demand that the operators of long-distance bus lines be required to pass on passenger lists to the Federal police with which the job center can undertake inquiries there; the same applies besides for air travel to German airports. 

We demand in regards suspicion of unpermitted absence that the immediate stop of payments follows. We demand that in regards the confirmation of an unpermitted absence that not only the payment will be stopped, but all previously made payments be paid back, inclusive of costs of shelter. And should those in need of protection travel in a war area, from which they have ostensibly fled, then that means reimboursement of the social benefits; then that means also the withdrawal of the protection status and a ban on entry. Such people who exploit our social system have nothing to lose here. 

Honestly said, I was shocked at the committee sitting today. There, I had addressed the theme, the social politicians among us will recall. 

            Jens Teutrine (FDP): You did not! You did not speak!

All peek with big eyes and ask how can it be that, in EU comparison, so few Ukrainians are working here, yet so many Ukrainians are on Bürgergeld. I had asked whether not perhaps this is connected with the flex busses to Kiev. The Frau State Secretary’s answer – there she sits; she will be able to well remember – was accordingly: It is nevertheless self-evident that Ukrainians go home so as to look after things. And you also said: The SGB II [Social Code] also foresees a vacation. I thus can only say one thing to you: You do not oppose the social tourism, as we demand; you promote the social tourism. You are the problem in our country. 

I can only say one thing: Who comes to Germany and here draws social benefits, then goes on vacation, goes to a supposed war area, 

            Markus Kurth (Greens): “A supposed war area”? O Gott!

he has no claim to social benefits, he has no claim to protection, he does not belong in Germany, he belongs in his home and there he can remain. 

Many thanks for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Björn Höcke, June 6, 2024, Thüringen Election

AfD Kompakt, June 6, 2024. 

The balance of the Ramelow government comes out catastrophic. The ongoing negative trend in Germany is reinforced by Ramelow’s failures in central political areas: Ever more businesses report their economic position in the Thüringen location as bad, restrain investments or reduce workplaces. Teachers are lacking in Thüringen schools, students more frequently fail minimal demands in reading and math. The domestic security erodes, and foreign criminality is at a new highpoint, be it in inner cities or regional trains. Therefore, political change with the AfD, instead of „Weiter so” with Ramelow! 

 

[trans: tem]