Stephan Brandner, January 29, 2026, Free Speech and the German Judiciary

German Bundestag, January 29, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 21/56,  pp. 6782-6785. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Frau Wegge, in regards to what you have just said: The frontal attack on democracy certainly proceeds from Herr Spahn. Not without a reason is his place probably now free. Ladies and  gentlemen, freedom, before all, freedom of expression of opinion, is for us of the AfD of supreme importance. We were therefore already against the intensification of this gag order or lèse-majesté paragraph 188 StGB [penal code] in 2020, besides being the only sole democratic delegation here in house. The others find the persecution and criminalization of citizens either good – so like SPD, CDU and CSU – or they were indifferent – like the Greens or the then still existing FDP. It is said – Frau Wegge has referred to it – local politicians should be better protected. Yet already in 2020 was that a transparent cover-up of the true intentions. In truth, it is and was about, for your no more to be called old parties cartel of self-named quality democrats, your own protection from criticism and satire by criminalization of citizens and the instrumentalization of state prosecutors and the courts. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): That is just such rubbish! You yourself don’t believe it!

And then it precisely so came: Thousands of criminal proceedings by notices from Habeck, Baerbock, Strack-Zimmermann, 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): …Weidel! Alice Weidel!

Fritz Merz and many other political powers. 

            Marcel Bauer (Linke): And Stefan Brandner!

Around 1,400 proceedings in year 2022, 2,600 proceedings in year 2023, 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): You speak of your own matter, ne?

4,500 proceedings in year 2024. 

            Lena Gumnior (Greens): How many proceedings are there against members                                           of your party? 

Thus explosive growth and massively absurd investigations, accusations and sentences fully unworthy of a state of law. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): Hundreds of notices from the AfD!

I name only for example the crusade of the judiciary – this compliant judiciary –         

             Helge Limburg (Greens): How many notices then has Frau Weidel presented?              Did you have the goodness to look into that? Do you find that also so bad?

against Stefan Niedhoff on account of the Habeck-Schwachkopf case, or the persecution of the chief editor of the Deutschland Kurier, David Bendels, on account of a fully harmless and substantially correct photo montage of the then still mighty, meanwhile Gott sei Dank slowly falling into oblivion Interior Minister Faeser. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): What then did Frau Weidel say to your speech and                                             your draft law? She who is, ja, not here, the Frau Weidel? 

There followed upon these harmless acts of criticism and satire house searches and complaints. 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): “Compliant judiciary”?

Draconian prison sentences on account of criticism and expressions of opinion; that, one needs imagine, and that in your democracy in Deutschland in which you have so conveniently established it. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Is it true that Frau Weidel has made a three-figure                          number of criminal complaints under §188? What then does she                                            say to that?

This system, hostile to freedom and citizens, functions exactly so as you previously planned it. We of the Alternative für Deutschland want to change that 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): Nein! You want to weaken the state of law!

and therefore put forward already in September of last year a draft law – this draft law [Drucksache 21/652] – which foresees the abolition of the §188, this special criminal law favoring the politicians. 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): Do you doubt the independence of the judiciary?

Our conception of freedom and equality is namely what? Equal rights for all, quite simple. And because to all apply the general paragraphs on insult, slander, malicious defamation – §§185 to 187 StGB – no special penal law is required. 

We brought it in. Yet what was there in the first reading? Hate, agitation, meaningless vulgarity 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes. But only from you! 

            Carmen Wegge (SPD): Everything covered by the freedom of opinion, ne?

from the old parties crowd against our draft, up to the colleague Wiegelmann of the CDU – whom I still hear – who in substance actually was in favor, who however today may not speak. Herr Wiegelmann, what have you done here? 

            President Julia Klöckner: Herr member, do you permit an interim question?

If you pause the time which continues, gladly. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Remain calm. I also can add and subtract in my head.

Ja. – Now probably comes a question for Alice Weidel and the supposed criminal complaint from her, or? 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): Herr colleague Brandner, just a quite brief                                    interim question. – Did I rightly understand you? You’ve just                                                    designated the judiciary as compliant. It would thus interest me                                                whether you are of the conviction that the judiciary in this country                                        is independent or the servant of others? – Please.

Here, we of course need to differentiate, Herr colleague. 

            Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): That is not your strength!

We are not, ja, inclined – like you, obviously – to generalizations. 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): What then have you plainly done?

But it needs be quite precisely looked at. When I for example look at the proceeding against David Bendels at the Bamberg police court [Amtsgericht]: That was simply an activist justice [Gesinnungsjustiz] which took place. Embarrassing for any state of law! 

I also say of every function: The higher the court, the less so the march through the institutions has taken place. When I for example look at many of the higher administrative courts [Oberverwaltungsgerichte]: There, judgment will be rendered rightly according to law and statute, and not according to ideology. 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That sounds like “Make a Wish”, Herr Brandner!

When I for example look at many of the appeals boards [Berufskammern] at the State courts: There, it might be similar. At the Higher Regional Courts [Oberlandesgerichten] it is still not that his leftist-green ideology is enforced. Thus, there one needs to differentiate. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): This defamation of the judiciary is unbearable!                               It shows that you are a real opponent of the state of law. That, you emphasize             with this answer! That is outrageous!

Yet this left-green-woke march through the institutions, which persists, ja, for decades, has naturally not stopped short of the judiciary. And if you take a look at who in recent time, for example in State governments in which the Greens have participated, are nominated as Justice Minister, you may only shake the head. Earlier, it was not completely absurd to proceed on the basis that Justice Ministers should perhaps be jurists, and not anyhow quota women, quota men, quota queers who need a job. Yet in the meantime, the judiciary in Germany in fact has degenerated into a feed barn [Versorgungsstadel]. 

            Carmen Wegge (SPD): Thanks for the material, Herr Brandner.

Thus, look at it precisely. There is in fact activist justice. And you of the old parties of course make it very simple in that you create the corresponding laws. 

            President Julia Klöckner: With that, the question is answered. Thanks.

I had herein indicated: Hate, agitation, and vulgarity against our draft law. Suddenly, Jens Spahn arrived and said: Nee, §188 StGB must go. – I thought,  I do not hear correctly. We said: That makes us happy. We bring it into committee. If the CDU then cooperates, we may do it. – Suddenly, you in committee were again against it. What then is with your CDU/CSU delegation? The chief said: Hyah! You make: Whoa! I believe Jens Spahn is at the political firing post, or not? 

Ladies and gentlemen, it is thus not only about the abolition of a paragraph of injustice, but about the Union’s overall credibility. Pinocchios, con men, charlatans, mud-slingers; 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Do you speak of your own delegation?

here, to whom does not immediately occur CDU or CSU names? Guttenberg, Merz, Schavan, Weimer, Günther, current Professsor Dr. plag. Mario Voigt. Thus, if you want to carry on with this chain, then reject our draft law. 

            President Julia Klöckner: So now the time is truly up. You have greatly                                                     exceeded the time.

If you want to make honest Politik, want to be credible, then vote in favor of our motion. 

            President Julia Klöckner: I plainly gave a signal. Otherwise, I turn off                                                        your microphone. 

Many thanks, Frau Klöckner, for the generous handling of the time. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mary Khan, February 10, 2026, Mass Immigration in Spain

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, February 10, 2026, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-10(2-0460-0000). 

Herr President. 

Of what leftist governments are capable, Spain shows us. A half million illegal migrants, simply with a wave of the hand, will be thus legalized, inclusive of work permission and the prospect of a permanent residency in Europe. This, what we since 2015 experience on our continent, has nothing more to do with measure and control – and I say this to you as someone with a migration background, because there is a great distinction between regular and irregular migration. 

This, what Spain now plans, manifests a destructive policy from which our continent in foreseeable time will scarcely recover. It is quite clearly a political signal. It is a signal to the world that illegal residency – yes, and that is a crime – in the end pays. It is a signal to Europe that national ideological projects are obviously more important than responsibility in our Schengen area. Since anyone of these 500,000 illegal migrants can tomorrow freely move about in all Europe. And they will move about, and indeed to Germany, since, following the legalization, there is clearly more money here than in Spain. That shows the true face of leftist policy. 

When it is recognized in regards one’s own people – this is quite important – one in the long-term can no longer convince, then a new group of voters is sought. Thus the earlier Spanish minister from Podemos quite clearly and before all fortunately welcomed it. Migration, so she said, needs be used so as not to leave leave society and democracy to the wrong ones. Everyone knows what she thereby meant. 

Herr Magnus Brunner, directed to you: We had two important votes today which go in the right direction so as to be able to finally control the problem of the migration policy. We expect from you it will be tested here, primarily according to Article 258 of the EU Treaty. That would be for us quite right, since this, what Spain is doing, will ultimately pull us all into bankruptcy. 

 

[trans: tem]

Thomas Fetsch, January 15, 2026, Rental Housing

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6355-6356. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

“To Better Protect Renters”, so is the undertitle of the called-for motion. The here presented demands from the Linke party for a supposed rescue of an, in part, no longer functioning rental market which is unfortunately covered to a not insignificant degree with similarly knitted regulatory aims of the governing coalition – we have just now heard a bit of it – are all too well known, in a longer view massively detrimental, and stamped with a fundamental scepticism vis-à-vis owners of real property and the functionings of market forces: A sharp rental price brake, a limitation of existing rental increases, a more temporary rental freeze [Mietenstopp], a substantial restriction or indeed abolition of indexed rentals, a regulation or a ban on furnishing supplements [Möbilierungszuschlagen], a strong regulation of short-term rentals, a massive restriction of owner use terminations [Eigenbedarfskündigungen], expansion of grace period payments, an introduction of agreement and transparency obligations, etc. etc. The supposedly all-knowing state – instead of market reason and realism – shall thus set it right. Ladies and gentlemen, this false, as even so hostile to freedom, spirit with which the presented motion breathes, we reject outright. 

Instead of creating the statutory and economic conditions so that business builds new housing, and owners of housing space are not, with all force, more or less deterred from renting, socialization [Vergesellschaftung] fantasies are spread – by means of expropriation and by means of ever additional shackles laid upon the owners – and become salonfähig in bürgerliche milieux. Thereby is private rental law reconstructed into an additional sozial right, instead of finally, vigorously addressing the actual problems of the present housing market misery. 

In fact – this proceeds from a current, representative Civey survey – it is expected that the regulation of indexed rents, planned by the Federal government, as it happens threatens to become a veritable housing construction brake. Since by the long-term value guaranty of inflation protection, building projects often only become more calculable and feasible. The additional statutory guidelines – be it here in excessive form of the Linke motion, or in form of the declared views of the governing coalition – only expand and deepen this problematic still further.    

In the end, still fewer rentable dwellings are available, and the stock worsens ever further because renovation and reconstruction measures will simply be omitted due to a lack of sufficient return on rentals. That could well enough be seen, for example, in the DDR, and that, we no more want here, ladies and gentlemen. 

What have Bund, States and local governments under leadership of the old parties – including the Linke, for example, in Thüringen – done for an improvement? Nothing, with penetrating effectiveness. They much more withdraw, by plan and incisively, from the rental market and sell their stock. In climate madness, they make massively more expensive the energy and construction costs. In the bureaucracy madness active in recent decades, every construction contract means an incalculable time risk for builders of every kind. You raise, in combination with the States and local governments, striking taxes like the real estate transfer tax [Grunderwerbsteuer] and the property tax [Grundsteuer]. And thus it plainly comes to, besides the actual rent, additional, sprawling rental side-costs which have long since attained the level of a second rent. It is thus primarily your false, anti-renter and anti-landlord policy which has created the dilemma of the high rents. 

An additional, essential price-driving aspect was in any case recently named by the German Renters Union. The number of renters has risen in the past five years by around 3 million people, which has naturally, additionally and clearly intensified the dwellings supply situation. And if you all do not want to hear it: Behind that is the unplanned, uncontrolled and overwhelming migration which we self-evidently reject. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): I thought you had forgotten something!

The means of the Linke as also of the coalition – still more regulation and still deeper intervention – further does not help here, but even intensifies the situation. From this muddled situation, only a great new start helps, and which is only possible with the AfD. 

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

Siegbert Droese, February 9, 2026, Digital Euro and Inflation

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-09(1-0107/0115-0000). 

Frau President. Frau President Lagarde. Honored colleagues. 

We debate today the year’s report of the European Central Bank. This report shows primarily one thing: A central bank which is ever further removed from its actual mandate. The monetary policy of the last years has led to noticeable inflation. Millions of citizens, savers, pensioners daily lose purchasing power. Instead of clearly reappraising these failures, the ECB already plans the next profound intervention – the digital euro. 

The digital euro was sold to us all as a harmless modernization project. In truth, it is a political project which deeply intervenes into the citizens’ financial freedom. The digital euro solves no real problem, nevertheless creates numerous new risks. It is a great experiment. A digital euro creates the very concrete danger of step by step driving out cash. It makes possible the state tracking of payments, and opens the long-term possibility of taking influence in how and for what citizens may use their money. Who believes this instrument would never be politically mis-used ignores the experience of history. 

Yes, President Lagarde, you seek to pacify us today, in which you announce the third series of euro banknotes. Yet: The Alternative für Deutschland, the ESN delegation, demand a clear return of the ECB to price stability, transparency, and adherence to mandate. No digital euro without unlimited preservation of cash, no further power increase for an institution without democratic control. Stable money and freedom go together. Both today are on the daily order, both today are in play. 

[…] Herr colleague, many thanks for your speech. You speak of the ECB’s duty: Currency stability, price stability. The ECB president today here admitted in parliament there supposedly had been in the past only 10.8 percent inflation. Now the inflation is again at a normal level. The question to you: Do you believe that the ECB heads, Frau Lagarde is here present, that the ECB heads realistically estimate the social consequences of inflation? 

 

[trans: tem]

Ruben Rupp, January 15, 2026, TTPA and Freedom’s Advocate

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6312-6314. 

Right honorable President. Honored members. 

The CDU Minister-president Daniel Günther just a few days ago quite openly declared the press to be an enemy. He spoke of censorship, ja, even of a ban of free media – statements which, let us be honest, had they been used by an AfD minister-president 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Happily, there are none!

would have immediately led to demands for a party ban proceeding. They will now by the Union be relativized and applauded, dear colleagues of the CDU/CSU. If you have the decency, then distance yourself here and today from such authoritarian fantasies of the minister-president. 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): You speak like the blind man of color. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Wow! Can the next speaker do the same?

Especially handy for Günther and his supporters is that the European Union meanwhile delivers precisely this tool suitable for his authoritarian dreams from the Digital Services Act, which the coordinating office for digital service in fact degrades to a censorship authority 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That is false!

by the planned EU chat control which shall make possible an unfounded mass surveillance of citizens, up to a so-called decree on “transparency and targeting of political advertising”; in short: TTPA. And before you, as so often in these debates, respond to our motion [Drucksache 21/3609] with over-reaching allegations: 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Mimimi!

Just because we want to cancel the TTPA is not to say we are against transparency or would tolerate foreign influence in elections. 

            Anna Luthmann (Greens): Ach so!

These fairy tales of the AfD as a supposed foreign marionette are simply untrue. Possibly you are simply envious because you yourselves scarcely still have international contacts. In short: This marionette card is in all cases the cheapest propaganda, and I am sure you will again today unpack this propaganda, because you have no arguments against the AfD and against this motion. 

            Sonja Lemke (Linke): We have quite good arguments against the AfD!

In fact, this decree is an attack on the opposition and freedom of the press. Yet in turn you come along. 

Ostensibly, the TTPA theme comes as so often with an apparently plausible reasoning: No influencing of elections! Yet it’s only about transparency. That this decree for transparency is not necessary is shown by the state of the social media prior to the introduction of this decree. 

I myself have connected digital advertising on Facebook. I needed to quite clearly specify who financed the advertisement, needed to authenticate it with the personal statement, and much more. That was transparent, that was sufficient. 

What now does the TTPA do beyond that? Expensive compliance, extremely difficult targeting, massive legal insecurity for platforms. What now exactly is political advertising? And at what point is it political advertising? – And a high risk of compensatory fines for the smallest mistakes! The result: The effective withdrawal of almost all large platforms – Meta with Facebook and Instagram, Google with YouTube. Since October 2025, political paid advertising in social media is de facto no longer possible. 

And whom does that harm? Not the governing parties, not the established media houses, 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): So far from the reality!

not ARD and ZDF. Harmed will be new parties, opposition forces, critical associations, candidates and think tanks. And yes, quite especially Germany’s strongest party, the AfD, will be harmed. Since we are present in the digital spectrum, because we enjoy no favorable, continual coverage by large publishing houses, or by public broadcasting media, like all of you here. 

What thus here is in fact happening is the targeted shutdown of a political competitor under the pretense of an ostensible transparency. I say: Away with this undemocratic, junk decree of the European Union! 

And if you now ask: Yes, AfD, what then is your solution for the influencing of elections? Quite simple: The fight against foreign influence is a duty of the security authorities, among others, the Federal intelligence service [BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst]. This ought to be strengthened. Since in the secret service work, we are meanwhile near completely dependent on the U.S.A. – and that because you in the area of security- and key-technologies have slumbered for years. That is your responsibility and your failure. 

Nevertheless, you are especially disillusioning in this debate – and this I cannot spare you, Herr Digital Minister Wildberger – with your cabinet draft law for political advertising transparency, the national ensuing legislation for the TTPA. This draft in regards so-called advertisers, thus parties, associations, business and political candidates, expressly enables house searches and seizures on account of ostensible violations of transparency. We are here quite quickly into criminal law. Who works politically needs in the future to thereby figure that he receives a house search. 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Such rubbish!

And just retroactively can he defend himself against that. You thereby clearly create an intimidation effect. I ask you: Is that your idea of freedom of the press and fair, democratic competition? Ours is quite clearly not. 

And it becomes still worse. In regards danger in delay, house searches shall even be possible without legal writ. What may we then imagine of that? Does that mean that the successful pay videos, critical of the government, from Alice Weidel or from Nius chief Reichert are a danger in delay? The video is uploaded – danger in delay – and directly there are house searches on the initiative of the coordinating office for digital services which is controlled by the Digital Ministry? Need we imagine it? 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Nein!

That something so is at all in a cabinet draft is incomprehensible. On this account, I say: Without delay, take back these regulations, Herr Digital Minister. 

If you do not believe me: It is in black and white in §6 and §7 of the cabinet draft. I myself have again taken a peek. I yesterday questioned the minister in committee. He disputed all of these problems which I listed here, designated the criticism – by analogy – as disinformation. 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): You too! 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): You too!

Herr Minister, here is the last opportunity to set it right. 

I expect here and today a clear statement of the Federal government. Take back this cabinet draft! Or do you adhere to seizures and house search even without a judicial decree? Yes or no? It cannot be so difficult to here clearly declare. 

Regardless of how the Digital Ministry positions itself, the AfD remains now and in the future the advocate for freedom. 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Hahaha!

You can be sure of it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, January 22, 2026, To Fight for Europe

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE REV(2026)01-22(4-0016-0000). 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The drones report of colleague Pozņaks is distinguished by excellent technical knowledge, yet it completely ignores the factual situation of risk in which we find ourselves. We need to be aware that Europe today stands before a security policy shambles. For decades it was believed to be able to exercise influence as an economic power alone. Yet only who is equipped by his own military strength can also effectively manage security policy. As far as the project is to create our own European defense technology and industrial base, it is correct, and the AfD and ESN will essentially support it. The beginning of every security policy realignment however needs be a qualified situation assessment. It is usual in security policy that you know how to distinguish between risks and threats. A threat is present where the aggressor possesses the intent as well as the capabilities to inflict a harm on others. Is Europe, are the European NATO members presently threatened militarily? The answer to that can only be: No, they are not. And not by Russia – regardless of how often this nonsense is repeated. Russia has neither the intent nor the capabilities to successfully attack and invade a NATO member. The Russian armed forces have not succeeded in four years to completely occupy even just the Donbass, although that is the  declared aim of the Russian leadership. Russia at Berlin, Russia in Paris – do you really believe that, Frau Strack-Zimmermann? And why, at all? Does Russia need more territory? Does Russia perhaps need the European rare earths? 

Colleagues, it is quite obviously an absurd scenario with which the peoples of our states shall be intimidated and be made pliant. It is exactly so unrealistic to nevertheless believe the Russian armed forces can again be driven back to the borders of 1991. The unfortunate words of colleague Reuten which the Parliament approved yesterday – his assertion that Russia’s defeat in the Ukraine is the most effective and thrifty investment in the European security – are a complete security policy false projection. The AFD and the ESN delegations stand for a security policy which is oriented to the realities. According to Carl von Clausewitz in his great work Vom Kriege, the political and moral powers are decisive for success in combat, especially the will of the fighting society. This will does not arise from the statements of self-righteous politicians. It arises only when the people know whom and what they should defend. 

A Europe which denies its borders, a Europe which permits massive, illegal immigration, a Europe which passively witnesses an Islamization instead of preventing it, a Europe the elites of which threaten freedom of opinion, a Europe which teaches the young people rainbow propaganda instead of love of country, a Europe which is consumed by a loss of meaning and an inner fatigue – such a Europe can produce no people who will fight for their self-preservation. 

In a recent survey in Germany, just 38 percent of those questioned said they were ready to support the Bundeswehr in an emergency. 59 percent answered negatively [ablehnend]. Vice-president Vance unmistakably expressed it at the Munich Security conference: The greatest threat for Europe is not Russia or China, but the retreat of fundamental values within Europe itself. Colleagues, so long as the political elites of Europe – and to that belongs this Parliament – manage a refusal of cultural conscription [kulturelle Wehrdienstverweigerung betrieben], they should not complain when young people are no longer ready to fight for Europe. Just when we again know for what we should fight, will we also be able to build up those military capabilities which colleague Pozņaks so impressively identified in his report. 

 

[trans: tem]