Beatrix von Storch, July 8, 2026, Germany and the U.S.A.

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/88, pp. 10804-10805.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

We want an alliance with the U.S.A. That is due to national interests 
and to the common cultural roots, but not to the mission of liberating 
mankind from all evils of this world. 

There are two viewpoints on the 250 year U.S. history. The Transatlantiker 
transfigure [verklären] it, and the anti-Americans diabolize it. Both are 
wrong. The history of the U.S.A. is like that of every great nation full of 
light and shadow. We need not transfigure the U.S.A. so as to be allied 
with them.

Our relation to the U.S.A. and to Russia will always be other than that to 
China, India, Iran or to the Arab states, because we are branches of a 
European stock, 

Metin Hakverdi (SPD): “Branches of a European stock”!

because we have the same Christian root, and naturally because 50 million
Americans have German roots. And we are proud of that, what Germans have 
achieved by construction of the New World. It could be said: Those were
American-speaking Germans; it’s true all around. The Steuben parade in New 
York or the Carl-Schurz-Straße in Spandau recall that. 

The migrant German revolutionaries of 1848/49 played just so a decisive role
in the founding of the Republicans as in the fight against the slavery. Thus 
my proposal to our leftist post-colonialists: A memorial in Friedrichshain-
Kreuzberg for the white German men in the American Civil War. If anyone
fought against the slavery, then it was them. 

250 years of U.S. history also stand for the myth of an immigration society 
with open borders in which every unfortunate from all the world was 
accepted. Aristide Zolberg in his book “A Nation by Design” has done away 
with this myth. The Americans have knowingly selected who they have 
wanted as immigrants and who not. Thus 19th Century European immigration 
was promoted and the Chinese limited, otherwise the U.S.A. today would be 
Chinese. Donald Trump’s immigration policy is thus no break with the 
American tradition; but the conscious control of the immigration over 250 
years is the basis for the U.S. model of success. 

In the last 250 years, there was always two Americas. The America of the 
progressive elite and that of the culturally conservative majority – and so it
is also with us. The progressive elites on this and that side of the Atlantic believe
that we have a global mission to free the world from all evils, that we are 
responsible for the fate of every citizen on earth as for our own citizens, or still 
more, and that our national interests are identical with the interests of all 
humanity. 

In the U.S.A., this wrong way lead to a long series of disastrous military 
interventions as in Iraq or Afghanistan, and in Germany to a self-destructive
refugee and climate policy.

The MAGA movement and the AfD both stand for the same political goals:
The end of this errant global mission and the return to the interests of an 
entirely normal nation. The order of our day enjoins: Solve the problems of 
Detroit and Gelsenkirchen instead of those of the Ukraine and of Afghanistan. 

And I want to close with a sentence of U.S. founding father Thomas Jefferson
which is today as valid as then, and unfortunately very current. Where the 
government fears the people, freedom prevails. Where the people fear the 
government, tyranny prevails. 

Many thanks. 

[trans: tem]

Ulrich Siegmund, June 23, 2026, 24 Years of CDU Government, I

Sachsen-Anhalt Landtag, Stenografischer Bericht 8/115, pp. 66-69.

Many thanks, Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The citizens in this country have the nose full of broken promises. They have the 
nose full of that. After the election will be continually done precisely the opposite
of what was previously announced. On that account, we hold this debate to be 
extremely important: Because we as AfD want to re-create finally trust in 
political institutions. 

Yet previously, as you know of me – Excuse me, please: You know that we are 
also able to differentiate; for example, the Greens and the Linke do it somewhat 
differently, they are honest. They bluntly state quite freely to the citizens what a 
lunatic Politik they want to make in this country. They quite freely state that they
are for a Verbotspolitik, 

Sebastian Striegel (Greens): Nein!

that they want to to further continue the Politik of open borders,

Olaf Meister (Greens): Those are lies!

that they are for gender quotas. All of this rubbish, you know that. And there 
are citizens who quite knowingly vote for it; das ist in Ordnung, das ist 
Demokratie.

The CDU however does it perfidiously. The CDU in an election campaign
does the exact opposite of what they later do in government responsibility.

Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): What?

That, we no longer want. On that account, we say quite clearly: We as AfD
want to again look forward. We actually do not want to suddenly occupy
ourselves with the CDU. We have entirely other concerns.

You find that funny. Yet that is the correct beginning, and we thereby again
know that we’ve touched a sore point, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, 
and we will continue to do that.

And because we have started with a little humor is the title of our current debate 
exactly right: “24 Years CDU Government, 24 Years Broken Promises, 24 Years 
Leftist Course”. That is exactly the big problem in back. It’s about this indirect 
leftist course in this society which is actually the exact opposite from that which 
the citizens actually wanted.

Juliane Kleemann (SPD): Who then are the citizens? I simply 
don’t know which general term you always use, Herr Siegmund!
That is always an assertion! The citizens! The people here in this
room are also “the citizens”!

Frau Kleemann, just as in the west as in the east, the people vote majority 
conservative. They however receive a leftist-green Politik under the covering
and under the leadership of the CDU. Where that leads is seen, for example, 
in Berlin quite especially; there, we have a CDU Bürgermeister. And what were 
his first actions in office? A queer commissioner for every, single district, the 
setting aside of the deportations, expropriation fantasies. That is the present 
course of the CDU: A left-green Politik under the cover of the black cloak. 

You do that not only in Berlin, you do that in Sachsen-Anhalt. We need to 
protect this State from that, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. So as to 
to undermine the whole, let us begin with a fact check. In the year 2021 was the 
last Landtag election. You all will recall even then the CDU had a great concern 
about a strong AfD, and on that account accepted concrete points in its 
election program. 

Just for once I ask myself why you at all write an election program. For once 

write a program with the title “Things Which We in the Last 
Government Did Not Implement”. That would be honest. Where do you go
in the running with an election program when you do exactly the opposite?
Therein we found the concrete points. I simply looked inside. In the year 2021, 
they were still concrete in the election program. You wrote: You wanted 
a fixed upper limit in the area of migration. 

Anne Marie Keding (CDU): We have still! All of it traces back! 
That clearly traces back!

You wanted consistent deportations. In the program, you were even still of 
the opinion that asylum is not immigration, and that following the lapse of 
the reason for protection the exit journey needs be in line. After the election, 
the CDU wanted to know nothing more of it. You were compromise-ready –
thus you named it – for your coalition partners SPD and FDP who both weakened
exactly this point in their election programs.  In the coalition contract, it is 
no longer once stated that there shall be an upper limit. There was no more talk
of that. You also no longer distinguish between the distinct residency bases. Nein, 
the CDU spoke of – I cite: That to the refugee people needs be explained their 
rights. That then landed in the coalition contract.

In the scope of the election campaign I quite precisely recall all those 
talkshows in which you said that our citizenship needs to be protected, that
it must not be granted in an inflated way. In the coalition contract suddenly
it was stated – I cite: “Naturalizations we consider as signs of a successful 
integration.” “Therefore we strive for naturalizations. ”

Daniel Rausch (AfD): People, people!

The CDU underwrote that, thus precisely the opposite of what they promised 
in the election campaign. 

And you have self-evidently stabbed in the back the farmers. In the election 
program is stated: You wanted moderation and restraint. You are against
sealing acreage, against the mirrorization [Verspargelung; i.e., solar panels].
You wanted an energy supply capable of the base load. And what was then 
in the coalition contract? The climate goals need be unconditionally achieved. 
You have further made free the way for still more windmills and now even in 
the forests. For all of this, the CDU has to answer. You sold and betrayed the 
farmers, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. However, not only did the CDU 
underwrite the coalition contract, one person also underwrote it: Dr. Rainer
Haselhoff, you all most likely remember. 

Minister-president Sven Schulze: That’s simply not right!

Yes, and you, too!

Minister-president Sven Schulze: I’ve underwritten that!

Ach, you have underwritten that? Still better! Wunderbar! Still better! Then let 
us come – 

Ulrich Thomas (CDU): So much to fact check!

Okay, I come to you Herr Schulze. – How, please?

Minister-president Sven Schulze: You need first for once read
it before you speak on it here!

Ulrich Thomas (CDU): So much to fact check!

We note it; Herr Schulze can simply not expect it. – Herr Schulze, I come now 
to you. 

Minister-president Sven Schulze: I don’t get it! Fact check!

You are in principle the personification of broken election promises, Herr Schulze.

[trans: tem]

Nicole Höchst, June 25, 2026, Organ Donation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/86, p. 10526.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

We as legislators in very difficult times go the way in common of preserving mankind 
with its God-given dignity, and to so support it in a transformational era that 
this becomes part of our being as free and responsible creatures, and 
similarly as humble co-creators in a pre-ordained order. 

Our dignity rests especially on the natural law, the Christian social teaching 
and humanist philosophy. We thus need continue to resolve the central
question: What is allowed to man? Not: What can he do? Only so does he
remain a man in a godly and natural order.

Certainly in the debate on organ donation this becomes clear. The Catholic 
Church sees the organ donation as a possible act of love of neighbor, yet 
only by voluntary, informed consent and utmost certainty upon the 
donor’s death. The body is not allowed to become disposable matter. 

The presumed consent [Widerspruchlösimg] in the present discussion, on 
the contrary, assumes an acceptance where none is actively presented and 
where possible none, actively and self-determined, can or wants to be given.  
It takes from the people in the acute situation the possibility themselves or 
through relatives to decide. It ignores the religious reservations of many 
Christians, Moslems and orthodox Jews who do not generally recognize brain 
death as complete death and emphasize the integrity of the body. And it
stands in contradiction to the dignity of the Basic Law, and to 
philosophical anthropology.

The presumed consent in regards organ donation potentially treats the body 
as a disposable resource. Man however is not a resource for social 
purposes, even if it is for saving the life of another. One’s own inherent
dignity does not end with death. Technical feasibility and commerce are 
not allowed to be able to set aside ethical limits. Trans-humanism and the 
de-coupling of humanity from the Creator are already far advanced. 
Humanity readies itself to set the natural order on its head. 

In the Basic Law it is stated: “The dignity of men is inviolable.” Dignity
however follows from that the man is a subject of this law, not an object 
of planning and disposal. The body of the individual is not property of the 
state, is not property of society or of an expectation, but an expression of 
the personal existence. A Politik which makes the body disposable without 
expressed, informed consent violates the primacy of the person before the 
collective.

Valued colleagues, there is no right to the organs of other persons. There 
is no obligation for compassion. There is a right to not decide. Let us thus
remain with the decision process which authentic free will and clarification
strengthen. Let us confirm men as free and responsible beings. These 
considerations unite Christian creation theology, the reason of natural law, 
humanist freedom and steadfast loyalty to the Basic Law. 

I thank from the heart all donors who voluntarily and out of conviction 
verify the compassion of the organ donation. Many hearty thanks. You are 
heroes. We need more.

Many thanks. 

[trans: tem] 

Christine Anderson, July 23, 2026, Charging Stations

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, E-003112/2026 Commission.

Written Question.

On 24 February 2026, the partly publicly-owned German energy company EnBW concluded a multiannual agreement with XCharge for high-power charging stations. EnBW operates more than 8 000 fast-charging points and plans to expand its network to up to 20 000 by 2030.

XCharge was founded in Beijing. According to its US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, its chief executive officer (CEO) and its chair/chief technology officer (CTO) control approximately 81.9 % of the voting power through Class B shares, while holding approximately 31.2 % of the share capital.

Operators of recharging points are expressly covered by the energy provisions of the Network and Information Systems (NIS 2) Directive, subject to its scope criteria. The Commission has also identified strategic dependencies, unauthorised access to operational data and remotely triggered disruptions as risks arising from connected energy equipment. It has restricted EU funding for projects using solar inverters from high-risk suppliers.

1. Beyond the general cybersecurity and supply-chain obligations under the NIS 2 Directive, does EU law require the assessment of suppliers’ ultimate control, third-country legal obligations, data access and remote software-update or maintenance capabilities?

2. Can charging equipment comply with the EU cybersecurity framework where persons exercising decisive control over the supplier retain remote-access or update capabilities and are subject to the laws of a third country presenting elevated security risks?

3. Will the Commission apply supplier-security and funding restrictions to networked charging infrastructure equivalent to those applied to solar inverters, or explain why charging networks should be treated differently?

Siegbert Frank Droese, July 9, 2026, Digital Euro

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-09(4-0208-0000).

Frau President. Honorable colleagues.

The proposed legal framework for the digital euro encompasses elements such as 
obligatory acceptance regulations, the involvement of the digital identity system, 
identification mechanisms, as well as continuing interventions in payments market 
structures. Beyond that, the proposal could have considerable effects on the existing 
banking system and the structures of private investments, as well as fundamentally 
change the relation between citizens and public monetary institutions.

The totality of these elements give rise to considerable doubt that Article 133 alone
presents a sufficient legal foundation for the currently foreseen legal framework. 
The digital euro thus hides the danger to expand the range of the Union’s legal 
currency competence by means of an extensive interpretation of Article 133 beyond 
the limits foreseen in the treaties. A proposal with such wide-ranging effects on 
the payments system, market structures, the banking system and payments mechanisms
in its current form is not allowed to be supported.

[trans: tem] 

[AEUV Article 133: Without prejudice to the powers of the European Central Bank, 
the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary 

legislative procedure, shall lay down the measures necessary for the use of the euro 

as the single currency. Such measures shall be adopted after consultation of the European Central Bank.]

Alice Weidel, July 9, 2026, Industry, Budget, Free Speech

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10882-10883.

Frau President. Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The Chancellor is there; I can see him back there.

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): He shuns the picture in common!

Herr Merz, since you are in office, with narrow-minded assurance you do 
the opposite of what you have promised and what would be right for this
country. 

Michael Kellner (Greens): “Narrow-minded assurance”, yet you 
know of what you speak, or?

You wanted to speak on the situation. You have not done it; for the situation
in this country is disastrous. Month by month, 15,000 industrial workplaces 
fall away. The auto industry is in a downfall. The de-industrialization turns 
into mass flight. Even Volkswagen staggers. 100,000 workplaces are on the 
verge. Suppliers and service providers fall like dominoes. Not a week without 
bad news. The German Mittelstand expends reserves. The insolvency tsunami 
expels prosperity and good jobs from Germany. Every 20 minutes a German 
firm goes bankrupt. The productive future investments have fallen to the null 
point. Germany has declined in international competition.

The ideological costs of your Politik and the Politik of your predecessors 
burden the German economy and all Germans and are no longer to be borne. 
At 6 trillion – 6,000 billion – euros estimates the economist Bernd 
Raffelhüschen the accumulated costs of the German migration policy. So 
expensive again becomes the failed energy transition if it is then executed to 
the bitter end, and nothing other than an industrial desert is left behind in 
Germany.

And the citizens and the taxpayers? They grow poor. They feel the downfall 
every day in their own pocketbook. The sozial spending explodes. It rises faster 
than the pay. Who works and pays taxes, he is the dummy torn between rising 
tax and duties costs, escalating costs for energy, housing, cost of living, and 
shrinking real incomes which everywhere do not suffice for a living. Out of 
such a situation there is only one exit: To lower the state expenditures, to 
eliminate all that is superfluous from the budget, to end the ideological wrong 
way, to leave in the citizens’ pocket more of the hard earned money, and to 
immediately liberate the economy from bureaucratic and fiscal restraints and 
immediately end the artificial increased expense and scarcity of energy. That 
is precisely what you promised the citizens before the election. You do the 
opposite. 

Instead, you deride the taxpayer with an anti-reform package which lifts the 
exploitation to the next stage. You preen yourself with a fake tax reform. You
do not relieve the taxpayer, you further burden him. You increase and discover
new taxes on tobacco, plastic, alcohol, sugar and crypto investments. You cut 
the parents money, burden families, increase the sozial contributions. Under the 
title “rich tax”, a pure tax of envy, you draw money from the pocket of the 
Mittelstand. You load the accounting for the expenditures. You one-sidedly
seek out the taxpayers and contribution payers and in addition insult them – 
they should work more and longer, not so many sick days – as complainers who 
should step aside, if you please. 

So that citizens and journalists put fewer inconvenient questions, you tighten  
the freedom of information law. You give more competences to the secret 
services and to the Constitution Protection. Ja, the fleecing and the suppression 
of the citizens and of the opposition need to conclusively proceed with the state
repression. 

And that fits that today your Ursula von der Leyen of the CDU in the EU 
Parliament wants again to have by expedited motion a vote on the total control
of the citizens, chat control, after this was rejected umpteen times. Vote until it
passes! By the total control in autos, in the chats, you thus want to control the 
citizens, while Ursula von der Leyen has deleted her Pfizer deals by SMS.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): It’s about sexual abuse of children!

I say to you one thing: To you applies the saying “All men are equal, many are 
more equal”. And that exactly is your CDU Politik summed up. 

You put forward a draft budget and a finance plan which explode all limits 
of  the spending frenzy and debt-making. You thereby further finance the eco-
socialist climate protection ideology of which the rest of the world for long 
wants to know nothing more. You continue to squander billions and billions 
of  euros for useless development aid which makes BlackRock still richer and 
nourishes some profiteers and lobbyists. With your Politik, you serve not 
Germany, but perhaps secure for yourself a high paid occupation by 
connection after you have left behind nothing other than scorched earth.
You pump additional untold sums into the NGO swamp and into the migration
industry, even when its favorites sink into a morass of corruption and infidelity; 
or, like the flight assistant of the murderer of six in Stade – from the SPD – are 
entangled in criminal machinations. 

You stir up Kriegsangst, and mis-use this as a license so as to, under the pretext
 of security expenditures, let fall the last inhibitions in regards debt-making. You
drive the arms spending to astronomical heights, without that thereby something
would be won for Germany’s security. Instead, you construct a state-controlled
and -financed armaments economy as a replacement for the real industry directed 
to fundamentals – an armaments industry the products of which you donate to 
the Ukraine. 

Year by year, you want to make more than 200 billion euros in debts; that is 
one trillion euros until 2030. In the next year alone, we pay interest in the sum 
of 40 billion euros, this year 32 billion euros. This then accumulates until 2030. 
I know, you laugh, you find that funny. 

Heidi Reichinnek (Linke): We don’t laugh. We suffer. 

To 2030, we have an interest service of 80 billion euros. – Listen to yourselves, 
for you cannot deal with numbers, especially you of the SPD. You can’t do it. –
You thereby risk losing Germany’s top rating in the capital markets. Your 
financial policy drives Germany directly into state bankruptcy, and the owners, 
the citizens with homes and mortgages, into ruin. Who profits? Perhaps BlackRock
or international investors can purchase at the lowest prices the German real estate 
in the year 2029 or 2030 at the latest. There again is closed the circle for this 
Chancellor Merz.

You leave behind a heap of rubble for those who come after you. A heap of 
rubble! I can say one thing to you: We will, despite this, accept the challenge and 
do the necessary when the voters give us the mandate. 

Dirk Weise (SPD): That, they will not do!

And when everything will have been knocked kaputt by you, we will liberate the 
state budget, the sozial system and the taxpayer from unnecessary and harmful 
spending and subventions. We will cut back the rampant Staatsapparat, halt 
the mass migration into the sozial system and push the consistent deportation 
of illegals and criminals. And we will abolish the individual right to asylum! We 
will end the ideological energy transition and lower the oppressive energy costs 
and tax burden. We are ready to overtake responsibility for Germany. Finally 
make free the way for a new government!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Boring!

That is the one service which you can still do for this country, Herr Merz!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Boring! Always the same!

[trans: tem]