CSU Announced Woman Quota for Their Bundestag Electoral List

Germany has got a confusing election system for the lower house of the parliament. Half of the seats are reserved to electoral lists, proportionally allotted on the basis of the percentage the parties won through a second ballot. Additional off-set seats are also drawn from those electoral lists. Markus Söder has announced that his party will send women only to fill fifty percent of its list mandates. But is that even constitutional? If at least 50% of the parliament is filled on the basis of lists, the composition of those lists become a part of the parliament election process itself. Legally the selection of candidates of the list is termed a ‘character of the action’ of the federal election (Tatbestandsmerkmal). If everyday citizens are free to pick and shed party memberships in order to take part in how at least half of the seats are filled, how can a party leadership predict that fifty percent of the positions on their electoral list are going to be women? The sources are in the description boxes of the video platforms.

The Green Assault on Our Constitution

The Green party (currently polling at around 18% and culturally far more influential than that already suggests) have written a manifesto in which they demand the inclusion of anti-racism into our constitution Grundgesetz. Article 3, section 3 is to include the goal that ‘the state guarantees the protection against all group-oriented violations of the equal dignity of all human beings and works towards the abolition of all existing disadvantages.’

Additionally a new Federal ministry is to be set up for ‘social cohesion,’ which will most certainly have the exact opposite effect because it is to focus on anti-discrimination, women, immigration, queer, disabilities, family, seniors, youth and “democracy.” Of course, this shall not take away from the already existing sinecure offices because those issues were supposedly cross-sectional and must also be dealt with on all other legs of our balooning state administration.

More in my video.

Merkel’s 89-Points Catalog Against The Far-Right (Episode 2)

Angela Merkel has cobbled together a long list of policies to fight the “far-right”. Of course, this is not about the handful of neo-Nazis who are drunk by lunchtime. Nobody in his right mind cares about them.

The new German fanaticism will be flushed through various ministries. In this episode I will run you through the items that belong to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Defence. Merkel’s goons don’t even shy away from lecturing others about colonialism, which was a fairly mixed period of time with positive and negative aspects.

An In Depth Discussion of The Democracy Satisfaction Study of The Friedrich Ebert Foundation

I looked into the study “Trust in Democracy” by the authors Roberto Heinrich and Jürgen Hofrichter of the Friedrich Ehrhard Foundation, a party-proxy foundation of the Social Democrats, to see where people are actually hurting and why satisfaction with how our government is run is so poor.

Trust in the media is plummeting to American levels. Only one in five thinks our parties are trustworthy although our constitution, unlike democratic constitutions, is designed to make us completely dependent on them and their leaders. The study asks participants about their suggestions to the problems and how they rank the conflicts of our time.

Link to the study:
http://www.fes.de/cgi-bin/gbv.cgi?id=15621&ty=pdf

Blonde’s (Rebecca Hargreave) video on the Harvard Study about immigration and social cohesion.

Merkel Lectures Us On Democracy – The Stralsund Response

On rare occasions Merkel gets to hear criticism from the plebs. Last week a man took heart & confronted her with what he (and I) perceives as her abolition of democracy. The response reflects her own lack of understanding what Western values even are. She starting e.g. with the claim that in undemocratic countries he would have to fear for his life for posing such questions to her. She does not understand that not every country outside North Korea is already a Western Nation.

70 Years Grundgesetz – Constitution or Wishlist Cacophony?

Source:
https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2019-05/70-jahre-grundgesetz-aktualisierung-verfassung

The mentioned Alice Weidel interview and my comments on it:
https://goldsteinweb.wordpress.com/2018/09/20/the-klaas-heufer-umlauf-interview-with-alice-weidel/

Article 6 of the German Constitution

I was about to write a more complex post, tried to quote the constitution, translated the relevant section, which Germans call article 6, and here is the result. Sorry, but does that constitution sound smart to you?

  1. Marriage and Family are under special protection of the state.
  2. Child care is a natural right of parents & their duty. The state ensures that it will be provided.
  3. A child may only be taken from his/her caretakers on the basis of a law and only if they have failed or a child’s neglect is to be feared for other reasons.
  4. Every mother may ask for protection and care provided by the community.
  5. Children born out of wedlock are granted the same conditions for physical and emotional development and standing in society as a child born into a marriage.

It was used to fend off gay marriage or to let the Supreme Court decree how much tax breaks you get for a child. I just can’t stop shaking my head. Sorry.

The Ills of the German Constitution

To begin with there are naturally so many ills of the constitution, the Grundgesetz, that I just come down with the most important shortfalls.

It is a book

That sounds silly, particularly for people who don’t live in the English speaking world, but there is a problem in itself when a constitution is not concise. The reality of the thought out and crisp US American constitution is that everybody reads it and is constantly talking about it. Only a people that knows what needs to be defended when it matters will defend it.

It is already outdated

First it sounded like a good idea to restrict government power by defining exactly what the government can do and would allow for nothing else. However, that did not only lead to the oversized text, but required the writers to know everything about the future. Debates whether the writers had thought of the internet, gay marriage and so on haunt Germans forever more.

It is treated like a religious book

Like any religious book the Grundgesetz is never read, always believed to say what the individual basing his argument on it wants it to say and must not be contested, not even amended beyond some petty left-wing policy goals.  To ‘leave the ground of the Grundgesetz’ is a phrase uttered whenever somebody is accused of apostasy. The name Grundgesetz replaces the words democracy, human rights and so forth, leaving the populace wildly uninformed. Germans regard their constitution as an embodiment of their values, which are actually the zeitgeist of the day. They see it less so as a document to restrict the powers of the government. The saints of that ‘religion’ are called the ‘fathers of the Grundgesetz’ and nobody can say who they are and why they are always right.

It doesn’t do what it says it does

Church and state are separated. Problem is that churches are legally organs of the German state and even school indoctrination is commanded by the Grundgesetz. The contradictions go on and on, hardly mentioned, hardly discussed. Who would? Nobody reads it! And doesn’t government and media put out ‘legal constitution experts’ to safeguard the people against government overreach? Isn’t that good enough? For Germans it is.

It doesn’t enforce Democratic Principles

The government is elected in a way that the majority party leadership, the government and the leading functions of the parliament are in the hands of the same people. These small circles of power don’t even change much over the course of multiple elections. The Supreme Court is hardly explaining on what legal section they base their judgements on. Only G-d knows how they manage to demand law changes to set government payments to the penny.

That is just a quick overview of what is wrong with both the text and the practice.

Disclaimer: Since the government is a tad nervous at the moment, I confirm that the constitution must be respected. Changes are applied by the channels that the constitution itself sets and must not result in the removal of our freedoms.