Leif-Erik Holm, July 9, 2026, Public Broadcasting

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10933-10934.

Dear citizens. Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The theme of public broadcasting [öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk, ÖRR]
affects very many people. They are rightly discontent with an extremely 
expensive broadcasting which we all need to finance and which at the same
time often reports without balance. When over 40 percent of the citizens no 
longer trust the ÖRR along the path, then is clear: We need to change 
things, and that we will do. I personally will also do that in my 
homeland in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern if I should become the next 
minister-president.

The question is: Is in the digital age still at all required so large a public 
broadcasting? The media supply is meanwhile gigantic; there are many 
free providers on the internet. And that is thus good. In this place, I thank 
all who are active on the internet, for thus has been developed a corrective
for a public broadcasting very close to the state. I say in addition not 
everything on the internet pleases me. Yet there is a distinction to public
broadcasting: I need not pay for it. 

Martin Renner (AfD): So it is!

And exactly that is it. While we need pay for everything on the ZDF, even 
for a dose of poison like Böhmermann, things can be freely received on the
internet. I can really understand anyone who no longer wants to finance 
the format like “Böhmermann” and Co. 

Maik Brückner (Linke): I don’t want to finance you!

That of course goes for me exactly so. Unfortunately, there are too many 
examples of it.

It is ever again the problem in the public broadcasting: It plainly does not 
report as it would be in its contract, objectively and balanced, but it ever 
again has a slant. We see that in the talkshow invitations, in the ever again 
tendentious reporting. For example, it was asserted in the NDR, in regards 
me in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, our government program had a völkisch-
nationalistischen keynote – completely absurd!

Everyone who has seen the program sees it. Even other journalists shake 
their heads over it. Or it is seen in the “Correctiv” fairy tales, or in the attack
on Elon Musk, he had called for a hunt of migrants. That completely
by-passes the truth. On that account: The ÖRR need not complain about its
loss of trust.

The citizens do not want to pay 9 billion euros so as to then receive 
curated [betreutes] television. They want an honest service provider which
says to them what is, which shows them the entire picture in a debate so 
that the people themselves can form an opinion. And here the public 
broadcasting ever again fails. 

Maik Brückner (Linke): Just don’t scream so!

In addition, the costs run out of control. When intendants earn more than 
the Federal Chancellor – over 400,000 euros per year – that can be 
explained to no one. We will change that. 

We need also end the power of parties in the supervisory boards. I find 
it an unequalled impudence that in regards to me in Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern, the Minister-president Schwesig deployed two active State
legislative politicians in the NDR broadcasting council. I find that simply
not suitable.

One thing is clear, ladies and gentlemen. If the AfD in the autumn 
overtakes responsibility in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, then there will be 
reforms. For the broadcasting clearly needs to become cheaper. It needs 
to guarantee a balanced reporting. And the partisan clique at the 
broadcasting and administration council needs to stop.

Therefore, my promise: As minister-president, I will directly after 
overtaking office cancel the NDR broadcasting contract

Vice-president Josephine Ortleb: Your speaking time is 
at an end. 

because it is necessary. 

[trans: tem]

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

Sachsen-Anhalt Landtag, Stenografischer Bericht 8/115, pp. 69-71.

Herr Hasselhoff has of course – I’ve just not brought it, be patient a 
few seconds.

Herr Hasselhoff promised his voters at the beginning of the legislative 
period that he will remain minister-president to the end of the legislative 
period. Herr Schulze, you were still more concrete, you also promised the 
people something. I have sought it out. It was in August 2025 – cite: “We 
push no political games”. Herr Schulze, you said that in September of the 
coming year you wanted to be elected by the people and not – I cite: 
“pushed through anyhow”. Then, according to reports, came the call from 
the chancellor’s office. Herr Merz said, a strong AfD is coming, you need 
to do something, the change should come now. And schwuppdiwupp, Herr 
Schulze, you were pushed through. You lied in the face of the people. Quite 
honestly, what does that have to do with honor and with respect? How to 
lie in the face of your own voters and on the basis of a broken promise 
present yourself for election?

Herr Schulze, in this same time frame, thus in August, you promised the 
people you are politically committed for a work obligation for asylum 
applicants. – Wait for once! – We previously moved for that. The CDU 
rejected it. Your statement was then in the newspaper to read, we thus 
moved again for it. And do you know who again rejected it? Your 
CDU, Herr Schulze. Your interior minister said she did not want it. 
You thoroughly lied to the people. I do not comprehend how one 
can reconcile with his conscience, if one still has one. 

Guido Kosmehl (FDP): Oh!

That is the quite big problem. However, now arrives the second 
big problem: For those lies work hand in hand with large parts 
of the media landscape. They plainly do not exhibit such a double 
morality, but they then let out that you want the work obligation 
for asylum applicants. They do not at all question that, even though 
your own party, your own interior minister spoke out against it. 
That would be a double morality that needed to be in the press. 
But no, that doesn’t go. 

And on that account, there are still people who always fall for these 
fairy tales and, on that account, is this debate so important. We need 
to open the eyes of the citizens so as to exhibit these lies.  
Yet in Sachsen-Anhalt it is insidious that not only promises of content
were broken, but also personal promises. That is for once a whole, new 
league. But I know, ja, you learned from the best, from Friedrich Merz. 
He entered the election with the goal of maintaining the debt brake, and 
directly after the election there was the largest debts package in the 
history of this country. Herr Heuer, you always speak of a schwarzen 
Null, and then you discover a Corona situation so as to take up 
unconstitutional debts. Thus, how can one so disgrace himself here?

It is a gigantic scandal. Yet at the State level this show is ever more 
revised. Now we have an election campaign, now you traverse the State
with all the solutions which you are selling. You thereby hush up that it
is you governing here who were able the entire time to have done exactly 
what you now communicate in every, single talkshow. But what do you 
do as performance in office, Herr Schulze? You make the first queer 
promotion program in Sachsen-Anhalt! A State program, a package of 
24 measures. I do not grasp which priorities the CDU sets: A queer 
program. We have so many other problems in the country, Herr Schulze, 
migration, energy, rising prices, and you trouble yourself for the queer 
community. It is simply incomprehensible. I know exactly why you do 
that. You of course prepare yourself for your new partner, for the Linke.
There, the red carpet well needs to be rolled out.

Herr Thomas laughs. Ja, there I have caught you a bit, Herr Thomas.

But for once you prepare yourself for your cooperation with the Linke. 
Here today, the citation was still not mentioned which I wanted to do. 
Luigi Pantisano, the national chairman of the Linke, said: There is no 
difference between the CDU and the fascists. If that is your new partner, 
then I surely haul out the popcorn. It will be exciting in the coming 
months! Inconceivable!

Frau von Angern today has at least distanced herself from the national 
chairman of the Linke. That is surely the first step. Super! You stick 
together with the Linke. Thus, that is simply just a heap of rubble!
Dear colleagues, in conclusion yet one matter. Certainly many podium 
discussions are running. No matter who sits there, whether it be someone 
from the delegation or from the government, one here always acts as if 
one with the government in that last years has simply not been in charge. 
You act in these talkshows, in these podium discussions as if here 
someone else governs, likely the AfD, and you were simply not in charge.
It is always the same picture. That is an incredible double morality. 

I come to a conclusion in which I freely say: It can be changed, and we 
need to change it. The citizens have not deserved this. We want that they 
finally again can put trust in political institutions, in which they are 
able to set up the AfD-led State government. On that account, we say 
quite clearly: Whether the CDU sometime once again correctly turns 
aside, or whether they go further with Frau von Angern, with Luigi 
Pantisano to the way of the downfall, that is their thing, it’s entirely the 
same to me. We concern ourselves with the important problems in this 
country, with the political challenges, migration, domestic security and 
much more. You play around with your firewall. You do that. 

Vice-president Wulf Gallert: Herr Siegmund, that changes 
nothing therein that your time is over.

I come to a conclusion. Last sentence, Herr President. We love this 
country. We will protect it from leftist your course. On that account: 
45 percent plus x on September 6, 2026, here in Sachsen-Anhalt!

Andreas Schumann (CDU): Encore, or what? Honestly!

[trans: tem]

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?