Albrecht Glaser, October 13, 2022, Tax Fraud and Cultural Identity

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/60, pp. 6713-6714.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Herr Chancellor speaks of “unsupported horror stories”. Essentially, it is about the Cum-Ex scandal, apparently the largest tax fraud in history. A high two-figure sum in the billions was thereby embezzled in Germany. Commerzbank, the WestLB, the HSH Nordbank, the Deutsche Post, the KfW, Volkswagen and other businesses with public shares are under suspicion of having participated therein. The state prosecutors office in Cologne with 19 prosecutorial teams investigates around 1,000 suspects. The central point in the fraudulent manipulations lies in the years 2009 to 2011.

It is about the manipulations of so-called Cum-Ex business. What is that? Capital gains taxes will be automatically detained in regards dividend payments. Specific recipients of these dividends are released from this tax and can therefore take back the tax amount from the Finance Office. This opportunity of a tax refund was with high cunning abused and the treasury defrauded.  

The banking house of Warburg in Hamburg was very active in this business field between 2007 and 2011. It “surreptitiously obtained” [„erschlichen“], as formulated by one business accountant, 169 million euros for this; meantime, a greater part of the tax requirements expired. In the year 2016, an additional sum of 47 million euros threatened to expire. The mysterious circumstances in this regard have to do with the First Bürgermeister of that time, subsequently Finance Minister and today‘s Chancellor.

All of the sudden an accountant at the responsible Finance Office began to reconsider the return, writes the author Huld who for years occupies herself with the Scholz affair. She contacted the bank shareholder Olearius who implicated Alfons Pawelczyk, the former Second Bürgermeister, on account of his contacts with Scholz. Both are members of the Hansestadt’s polite society.

Parallel to this, the Federal budget politician Kahrs was authorized as a lobbyist in Berlin. He is the one who in red woolen socks incessantly attacked the AfD with invective in the German Bundestag; it could also be said, so as to remain au milieu – with dirt and rubbish – and in whose safe deposit box was later found 200,000 euros of an origin unclarified to this day. Since we strongly believe in the independence of the Hamburg Justice, the proceeding will surely be rapidly clarified.  Also at this time, a party contribution in the sum of 45,000 euros was made by this same perplexed bank to the SPD.  

In the year 2017, one of the leading officials of the Federal Finance Ministry took notice of the not yet expired tax requirement of the sum of 47 million euros against the Warburg Bank. This co-worker insisted that the Hamburg authorities needed to prevent the expiration with a formal permission – a relatively uncommon procedure. Acknowledgement of this was yielded by means of investigations of the Cologne state prosecutor’s office. In Hamburg, nothing at all was criminally investigated.

In Cologne emerged the diary of Olearius in which there is talk of meetings with Scholz and the activities of Kahrs and Pawelczyk. Two conversations of Scholz with Olearius ensued in the offices of the First Bürgermeister – without witnesses and without result in the documentation. This was therefore ticklish because the Finance Minister previously denied any meeting with Olearius. I myself was witness to such a denial in the Finance Committee.

The capable official who wanted to avert harm from the country, was, following the assumption of office by Scholz, surprisingly early pensioned and the requirement of the sum of 47 million expired. That is no unsupported horror story but describes, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, the state of the nation.

It is exactly so the case with the domestic security, with defense against mass immigration and the resulting situation in the housing market, state finances, the education system, the energy supply, the booty system in public service opposed to the performance principle according to Article 33 of the Basic Law, especially so in Justice, and with the distressed freedom of opinion.

Appreciation of this state and of democracy as a whole, ladies and gentlemen, measurably withers for years – for that, there are endlessly many opinion surveys – not because the citizens are bad democrats but because the political class does not fulfill its duties. This state is not delegitimized by villains – my last sentence –

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

as the Interior Minister asserts, no, it delegitimizes itself by means of failures of agency and the knowingly induced renunciation of the cultural identity in this country, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

 

[trans: tem]

Malte Kaufmann, September 28, 2022, Russia, Weapons and Diplomacy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/56, p. 6179.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Let me at the beginning over and over again quite clearly say: The AfD delegation most sharply condemns Russia's war against the Ukraine. We have ever again given expression to this, here in plenary session as well as in the committees. This war is dreadful for all people participating; it produces unspeakable suffering and indeed on both sides. Each additional day of this war brings with it much suffering and death. We therefore must do all that is sensible so that this military confrontation stops as soon as possible.

The way by which the Union wants to go with its motion for ever more intensive weapons deliveries is however wrong.

It leads directly to additional military escalation and it contradicts the decades-long, established strategy of Germany to deliver no weapons to areas of acute crisis. Those who want to walk along this incendiary path sadly do not know what they in reality are thereby preparing. They believe that Russian President Putin is meantime “weakened”, it soon comes to an “overthrow” there, and then all will be good again. I recommend to these oblivious ones an interview appearing yesterday with Professor Baberowski who is one of the most renowned German historians of eastern Europe. He in all clarity said that the ranks around Putin have meanwhile closed and the war aims will adhered to with more determination by the Russian government the greater is the affliction from outside. Thus as the military pressure which the NATO states build up in favor of the non-NATO member Ukraine becomes greater, the more incalculable will be the reaction, to the point of a nuclear dimension which needs be urgently prevented. 

So as to not now allow the war to further escalate but to end it as quickly as possible, the hour of diplomacy has now come.

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Diplomacy for six months, 24 hours a day! It hasn’t                                worked!

Unfortunately, Germany has lost its earlier achieved position as a nation which maintains good relations with all countries of this Earth. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Weapons, weapons, weapons!

Today we have a Foreign Minister who flatters herself in rhetorical rearmament. Russia will be “ruined” by means of the sanctions – thus for example spoke Frau Baerbock with complete self-assurance to the running cameras. Oddly enough, the energy prices for us nevertheless climb to the unmeasurable while energy concerns in Russia take in record profits.

We of the AfD are committed to diplomacy. The resolution motion put forward by the CDU/CSU is drawn up for military escalation. In your motion, valued colleagues, on scarcely two and a half pages, the words ‘weapons” or “weapons systems” are to be read 19 times – 7 times the formulation is “heavy weapons” – yet not a single time the so important word of diplomacy. How can that be? In this regard, the aim of diplomatic efforts must be to bring about an immediate end of combat operations followed by peace negotiations for a long-term, stable co-existence of Russia and the Ukraine.

Instead of a further escalation, we desire a peace initiative – you could for once propose that to the Federal government – for example in the context of the OSCE as well as of humanitarian assistance.   

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Spoken with the OSCE?

Let us do everything so as to reconstruct peace in Europe!

Many hearty thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Gereon Bollmann, September 29, 2022, Data Storage and Child Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/57, pp. 6274-6275.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

I think the course so far of the debate indicates that we all might be very well agreed on at least one point: That the sexualized violence against children is one of the most horrific of crimes. Actually, that is fairly clear. And that the fight against it is a policy goal of the utmost importance certainly is not in question. The data protection however is. And because it is, once again in the last weeks two governments have suffered shipwreck before the European High Court: The French and the German. Both governments once again did not sufficiently take into view the freedoms [Freiheitsrechte] of citizens. We therefore now require a careful assessment of legal interests – and no hasty reaction of the adherents of a surveillance state.

Now already three of four cases of sexualized violence against children can be cleared up. The American child protection organization NCMEC watches over nearly all internet activity in this direction. From this organization the BKA receives the necessary data, and indeed quite without retained data storage [Vorratsdatenspeicherung] in Germany. No one though can seriously reckon how high the clarification rate would be if all IP addresses were stored. There is thus no cause for an excessive hurry.

Perhaps at this point: Frau Lindholz, you have certainly opened the debate with your proposal. You are an advocate for family law. I was a judge in the family senate of a regional appellate court. You have of course cited the passage accurately. Yet at the same time, you have not addressed the conditions which are in the European High Court’s decision.

Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Namely?

We have been referred to it by the colleague of the Linke, and also Herr Jacobi has basically made reference to it: It is admissible, although plainly just conditional.

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yes! Specifically in this case is it admissible! Exactly these cases have been explicitly singled out, Herr colleague!

What namely, Frau Lindholz, is in play? With your permission, Frau President, I cite another point. So listen well! Accordingly, the following is possible:

…traffic and venue data, which have been stored for ten or four weeks, can however be of very exact consequence to private lives of persons

            Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Yet it’s not about that!

            Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s about IP addresses!

whose data was stored – perhaps on habits of daily life, permanent or predominant places of abode

            Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s not about that!

            Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): That is quite a different theme!

– it is nevertheless the consequence, Herr Dr. Krings – daily, or in other cycles, ensuing changes of place,

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yet that has nothing to do with our motion!

activities practiced, social relations of these persons, the social milieu in which they move – and especially, making possible the construction of profiles of these persons.

Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): We are already long since out! It is simply not the same!

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Absence of theme!

Dear colleagues, it almost cannot be stressed abundantly enough that this would affect almost exclusively persons who have nothing at all to do with criminality. It further says in the decision that the fight against serious criminality is indeed of great significance, yet per se could not justify the necessity of a preventive measure of general and undifferentiated retained data storage.

I come to conclusion, Frau President. – On precisely these grounds we reject a storage of data without cause. Only with sufficient suspicion and – I stress – only with a judicial order are interventions in informational self-determination acceptable; not however by means of a legal free ride ticket.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Christian Wirth, September 22, 2022, Free Speech and Sovereignty

German Bundestag,  Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5928-5929.

Frau President. Valued colleagues.

When one reads the words “Basic Law” in regards to a draft law of this government, one first receives a fright. In this case you have knocked over nothing; that you could not do. You in fact arrive late, although the digital announcement of laws on an announcement platform is right. On that account, here is nothing much to say.

Otherwise pertains the old saying: Hands off the Basic Law. It is already bad enough how government representatives and representatives of the parties, who in the best DDR-speak praise themselves as democratic delegations in the house, lay hands on the citizens’ basic rights.

Thus, the Chancellor – I cite: “If announcements are highjacked by extremists, Querdenkers and enemies of the Constitution, we do not accept that.” What are extremists and enemies of the Constitution? And whom does Scholz count as a Querdenker? Is an enemy of the Constitution he who demands the explanation of the Chancellor’s participation in a business scandal or does not want to lend credence to his memory lapses? Is a Querdenker he who in good time warned of a lockdown, a vaccination obligation or vaccination harms?

Helge Limburg (Greene): What has that to do with electronic announcement, Herr colleague?

Is the businessman or pensioner whose life’s work and existence goes to the dogs due to a failed energy policy an extremist? Since when is that? When may the state proceed against democratic basic rights under the pretense of wanting to protect those democratic basic rights? In regards the basic rights, no head of government of the Federal Republic has so blatantly played with fire.

Thus one is not amazed by Interior Minister Faeser’s plea that one’s opinion can be declared without at the same time gathering in many places. Where, please? At home in front of the mirror? This statement is an imputation of civil society.

The President of the Constitutional Court, Harbarth, also does not stop short of this. According to Welt, he said, “ that the use of the freedoms [Freiheitrechte] can also be adapted to the delegitimization of the Constitutional order.” And, cite: “ The strong constitutional state must be consistently opposed to the enemies of law and the state of law.” That is identical with the import of the cited Scholz quote: Freedoms are good so long as they are not used by any who are opposed to the government; since criticism of the latter is today defamed as delegitimization. Thus the Constitution Defense has created on the fly a new area of phenomena: Delegitimization of the State Relevant to the Constitution Defense. Here will be placed all citizens who criticize the actions of the government.    

The bird however has been shot down by the former hope of the bürgerlichen-conservative camp, Friedrich Merz who, last week amidst the howling of the so-called democratic delegations, explained to the AfD delegation that in case of emergency all parties will prevent with all power that the AfD brings into the street the problems which we have in Germany.

            Philipp Amthor (CDU/CSU): A correct proposal!

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): That is scornful of the basic rights!

We will do precisely that, Herr Merz and dear CDU. On October 8^th, we with the citizens will carry into the streets of Berlin our right of assembly and demonstration and right to the free expression of opinion.

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Now for once on the matter!

And, Herr Merz, neither you nor the other parties will stop us.

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Boring!

Since for you all it is not about the delegitimization of the state which you fear. You all delegitimize the citizens, the sovereign.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]