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 your leftist 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?

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]

Mary Khan, July 8, 2026, Drug and Migrant Cartels

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-08(3-0290-0000).

Herr President.

Europe stands before an explosion of drug criminality and we experience 
a record availability of illegal drugs. The EU meanwhile has overtaken 
the U.SA. as the largest cocaine market, and at Eurojust [European Agency
for Criminal Justice Cooperation] the number of cases in only five years – 
only five years – has risen 60 percent; drugs worth 20 billion euros were 
seized. More than half of Europe’s most dangerous criminal networks are 
active in drug smuggling, two-thirds employ violence, over 70 percent use 
corruption so as to influence officials and port personnel.

This is no longer a side issue; this is a security policy total failure. Europol
itself states: The networks which smuggle drugs to Europe are largely the 
same criminal structures which also organize illegal migration and 
human trafficking. The cartels have long since understood: Europe’s 
open borders and its political coddling is their business model.

Our ports may no longer be gateways for drug cartels, and our borders 
may no longer be business models for traffickers. The solution is simple, 
that is to say: Secure exterior borders, destroy trafficking networks and 
stop illegal migration. 

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, July 9, 2026, Merz Government II

German Bundestag, July 9, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10868-10871.

[...] Let us come to healthcare reform and to the first day illness note, Herr 
Chancellor. And here again becomes clear that you really have null empathy,  
primarily for the citizens. Were such a proposal submitted by me and us, I 
would place myself before the voters. You however are full of mistrust and 
ill will in the face of the sick. Much more, you would thereby still further 
strain the already thin medical coverage. There are now full waiting rooms and 
long lines at the doctors' offices. There is actually shown that you apparently
do not at all know what proceeds out there in the country: Full waiting rooms, 
as was said, added to that the documentation obligations, overburdened health 
personnel; these then need to wait in line at the nearest doctor's office for an 
illness note. 

Herr Merz, such unmenschliche proposals will only be represented by politicians
who themselves seemingly never worked with the hands, but only have controlled
foreign capital from a manager's seat as an upper employee. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Does that apply to Frau Weidel?

Please do not get me wrong: I rejoice for everyone who in his calling is successful
and earns money. Those citizens who even perhaps came somewhat easier through 
these difficult times will nevertheless even so be burdened by your unpleasant 
approach to Politik.  

Wherein we also see you generally plan new costs. Just in the health field, the 
chronically ill and families will be burdened with the greatest costs - be it the reduced 
subvention for dental replacement, the obligatory costs of co-insurance for spouses, 
the rising costs for pharmacists, or the financing of gaps in the rescue service. All that 
damages the provision for young and old, their health and the attractiveness of our 
country. You drive with these measures remaining medical professionals out of the 
country. You worsen the health of middle- and low-earners - this is besides the 
majority of the citizens in Germany - the retirees and, before all, the future generations. 
Herr Merz, you also ever more leave the way of the sozial market economy. The bow 
is more quickly over-stretched than you actually think. 

The Alternative fur Deutschland is also here in position to build bridges, for the market regulates much in the area "Business and Economy". In the area of basic duties of the 

state, like health, education and infrastructure, or affordable energy, we in Germany see 

the state obliged. The people primarily need again to be at the center of Sozialpolitik, 

those who have contributed to creation of value and are also plainly active and will be active: Those are our children. With them stands and falls a sozial system. It thus can 

conclusively only be about using the savings potential of 12 billion euros in the area 
of Bürgergeld contributions for precisely this group of persons, so as to bring into 
employment all, namely those who are capable of work and are of corresponding 
age and thereby ending the state incentives for tax-financed non-work.

This concerns even so the immigrants into our sozial system, primarily from the 
Ukraine and from Syria, as precisely those who simply no longer want to 
work because they have settled themselves. Only with a strong focus may we 
strengthen the sozial accounts and, before all things, the community. We thus 
need to take in hand quite clear limitations and also formulate severe penalties 
for benefits abuse. These are exactly the important signs to the majority of 
citizens that thereby their hard work and willingness to perform again pays.
Germany can thus also again become family- and children-friendly. Like a 
thunderclap then the news of the planned cuts in the parents money hit all 
young families. You have spoken of families and children, Herr Merz. I am 
astonished that you at all formulated that. Yet which signs do these cuts send? 
What is this actually for priorities of this Federal  government? We have in 
Germany meanwhile the lowest birthrate since 1946. And what comes from 
this government, what pertains to family policy, what pertains to promotion?
Nothing. Null. That is really a disgrace for this country.

This Federal government wants to obligate everyone up to the 70th year of 
life to work, and invest preferably in panzers instead of children. It will play 
off the generations one against the other, and in the end commit the valuable 
tax money to none of either side.

You want the control of conflicts and wars not through diplomacy but through  
sanctions. These damage the German economy, the German people and the entire
European continent. Peace means prosperity, and prosperity is the basis of
security. 

Yet with horror I need see that you want to achieve the prosperity at the cost 
of peace. Massive upgrades and armament have nothing to do with the mandatory
fulfillment of alliance obligations. In the past twelve months, the spending for war 
weapons increased about 25 billion to over 124 billion euros. You regularly
celebrate your armaments intoxications, and have no one who wants to take up 
arms. The Federal Minister of Defense, Pistorius, needed to painfully experience
that following the reaction to approximately 300,000 questionnaires sent for 
military registration - merely a scarce 530 reports for voluntary service followed.

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear, hear!

The German people quite obviously no longer want to have themselves made 
fit for war.

And the young generation has decided. The time of the War Minister is past. In 
place of being employed in the construction of a destructive war economy, there
needs finally again be at midpoint an impulse for a peaceful living together between
the peoples of Europe. The NATO could be an alliance of peace, and not the finance
machine of the Ukraine war.

For a conclusion, yet a brief remark on law, and on the obligation of parties for 
holding their party meetings. We are all legally obligated to the same conduct. Just so 
more reprehensible are the calls for violence of individual members of this sovereign 
house who have exchanged democracy for the right of might. We could see in Erfurt
who these are, who ostensibly defend our democracy. They of course have 
contributed to that Apollo journalists were victims of uncontrolled assaults and the 
split in our society was driven ever deeper. The security measures for our national
party meeting in Erfurt cost many weeks of preparation time by police and Bund 
security forces. I want in this place to state to all mission forces my express thanks. 

President Julia Klöckner: Please come to a final sentence.

Dialogue and diplomacy are also the basis for security and prosperity.

Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Volker Schnurrbusch, July 9, 2026, Humanitarian Aid

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026) 07-09(4-0019-0000). 

Her President. Frau Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The less real influence the EU has worldwide, the more it portrays itself 

as a moral great power. Nothing against assistance in acute emergency 

situations and the protection of humanitarian personnel, but your resolution 

wants to make of humanitarian policy a permanent instrument in the 

billions with its own implementation architecture and sprawling political 

obligations.

It's always the same pattern: The Greens demand in the Bundestag three billion
euros, yet as long as in Germany bridges decay, hospitals suffer a personnel
emergency and retirees need to gather deposit bottles, such an application is 
simply inappropriate. 

And what happens with the money? In Yemen, the GIZ [Society for International
Cooperation] for years misappropriated German aid money - manipulated accounts,
gang-organized fraud, two-figure millions in damages which here will be further 
reinforced: The financing of NGOs and oftentimes corrupt regimes without we 
in Europe gaining something from it.

And where in the world our aid shows good results, it is often others who profit
from it. China manages its development policy strictly geo-strategic, and 
exclusively for its own uses. If Europe does not want to be the useful idiot who 
prepares the field for China's investments, then this claim to saving the world 
needs to stop.

Humanitarian aid - yes, but oriented to need and strictly controlled. It is not 
allowed to be considered isolated from the other development policy. We require
conditionality: Who wants our means needs to cooperate in regards, for example, 
fighting illegal migration. The blank check for global NGOs and endless transfers, 
which the left half of this house into the EVP demands, that is a sell-out of 
European interests and thus we reject this resolution motion. 

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, July 9, 2026, Merz Government I

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10868-10871.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear 
countrymen. - Dear countrymen.

Herr Chancellor, I really need say before all things that, in regards the first part 
of your government declaration, I really asked myself: Where do you live, actually?
In regards your statements, your wishes which you spread here, your polling
results must have gone through the roof. If one looked at that, you spoke  
of the costs of failures - of the costs of failures! I say to you: The costs of the 
failures rise everyday so long as you are Chancellor. Allow me please to 
continue with a citation: 

"That which the Social Democrats can do well is to make
debts, raise taxes and ever higher state spending. Now they 
give money to foreign people. We now have almost 900 
billion euros in state income. Can we occupy ourselves for 
once with the thought whether we have a problem on the 
spending side?"

End citation. The former Chancellor candidate of the CDU and CSU, Friedrich Merz, 
spread these understandable thoughts about one and a half years ago on 6 February
2025 on X. One may therein see, Herr Merz, what interests you in your idle talk 
of yesterday. It can be said, that is a mirror image of your entire Chancellorship.
It is and remains for you a unique tragedy. No one can rely on your word. You wriggle 
through autumn of reform, through reform spring, into the reform summer. In 
regards the duration, we take it you've been quite a time in a reform jam on the decaying
streets and bridges. A quarter of your government time has already run out, and we all 
know that the remaining time of this legislature until 2029 will pass by more quickly
than you believe - even if you hold on so long. You nevertheless cannot make me believe
that you had at all thought out the contested themes in the victory whirl of the spring 
of 2025.

Exactly so dishonest do you behave in the face of the citizens. The loss of trust in the 
word of this Federal government is scarcely still to be figured. You say the one thing, 
and as a rule first of all do nothing. As soon as something in the form of a law reaches 
the German Bundestag, you in the coalition are at least disagreed in the media or 
contradict yourselves on the public stage. Honestly said, I thought you in your parties
are somewhat further. All in all, you paralyze the economic and social progress. 

The Union in addition still walls itself in behind a firewall; for the party enemy 
identified by you gains ever more in approval, and you lose support and, before 
all things, credibility. You underlined this today with your speech. What however
is still not clear is, Herr Chancellor: If you in angst need to hide from us behind your
firewall, why do you actually at the same time make use of the proposals which were
worked up in our Bundestag delegation? 

Let us name it by name: You already long understood that you and your party need
to make Politik with our themes so as not to be swept from the political market, like 
the erstwhile FDP. Out of pure opportunism, you have turned left in a green direction
and drive in a circle without success. 

Your business model thereby further exhausted, you negotiate bad deals so as to 

remain in power. As example I just want to recall the climate and transformation 

fund. The increase in the billions of this budget item clearly did no harm to your 

election as Chancellor in the second round. Only, it appears you were, in your time 

out of politics, not really thus prepared for the leadership of a state. And that is 

logical, since BlackRock stands, ja, on the other side of the recipients of hard 

earned tax means which secure the return of your shareholders. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Ach herrje!

And precisely this you make clear with the budget Politik of your Federal 
government. Your cabinet in the 2027 Federal budget wanted to expend a 
total 555 billion euros. For that, the Federal Republic of Germany will be 
indebted by an additional 118.7 billion; with that of last year, over 200
billion euros of new debts. That is already double that of the original planning.   
Besides: Of the European treaties like Maastricht, Herr Chancellor, we 
no longer need speak at all. You for long no more observe them.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): How then would you 
do it, Herr Chrupalla? Tell for once!

I want to again remind you, Herr Merz: A state is no business firm quoted on the 
exchange, which in any case cannot at option be quickly purchased, wrecked 
and merged.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU):  Ever the same speech!

What however you could know: In regards to personnel and to processes, a 
state needs to be set up lean. And also there, this Federal government uses no 
savings potential in which for example it consistently takes into the state 
pension system the servants of the state, Herr Hoffmann. That would be a real reform.

 
How then do you want to still longer explain to the citizens that, for example, 
officials without a high income have at their disposal 70 percent already at 
pension age, and all others need to secure their retirement portion through ETF 
financial business, by which apparently armaments concerns still earn money 
for your war. And just in times of rising insolvencies, weak economic growth, of 
de-industrialization in the chemical industry, of the de facto elimination of mini-jobs, 
in times of war which make necessary the rebate at the pump, the sozial 
splitting needs to have an end. And just that which is financed by the community
needs to act as a part of the community. 

President Julia Klöckner: Herr member, do you permit an interim 
question from the ranks of the Union delegation, and that is from
Herr Alexander Hoffmann?

Bitte schön.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Thanks, Herr Chrupalla, that 
you permit the interim question. I was of course well nigh 
astonished. You speak here for minutes and thereby do what you 
always plainly do: You bad mouth [quatscht] our country into 
a depression. 

Stephan Brandner (AfD): Na, na, na!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): You bad mouth our people 
into a depression, Afterwards, Frau Weidel will speak. She                                                       does precisely the same. Now I am happy that in your speech                                                    finally for once occurs a position which was clear on how the                                                   AfD would do it.

Bernd Baumann (AfD): We say that continually every day!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): That was the following position:
We reconstruct the pension account when the officials finally pay
into the pension. That was finally a concrete proposal. You have 
clearly occupied yourselves with funding it. I want to share with 
you - 

President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me. Quite briefly: It needs be 
possible when a member of your delegation permits a question
that you first listen to the question. Yet this also belongs with 
that: This is impulse control. Bitte.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Thus, you are the delegation 
with the most interim questions, then you can also listen for 
once when someone else asks. How would that be, actually?
The AfD thus finally makes a concrete proposal. The officials 
pay into the pension account, and we thereby reconstruct the 
pension system. Herr Chrupalla, there are various studies - 
besides, the preceding pension commission also occupied itself
with this question - which have arrived actuarily at a fully clear 
result: The pension account cannot thereby be reformed and, 
before all, also not be placed on a stable footing, since opposed 
were corresponding payments costs. Apart from that, the officials
provision is fundamentally protected on that account. I now 
confront you with these studies and would gladly have your
answer whether you, against this background, still want to 
adhere to this epic proposal. 

Thus first, Herr Hoffmann. When I permit to you the question - you speak frequently
of the "delegitimization of parliament" to which we, ja, allegedly contribute - and when 
the leader of the opposition gives a speech here, then he speaks, and does not "bad
mouth", as you label it. 

Point one: You nevertheless always speak of civility [Anstand], and then I at least 
expect that you as State group chief of the CSU also have this civility. Point two: 
Yes, we in our demands have also included that all pay into the system of the 
Pension Insurance, officials also. 

Alice Weidel (AfD): And politicians!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Do the math!

That is justice; it is about us. You have taken the politicians as a circle of persons 
which we have always supported. You espied this from us, because of course
ever more citizens demand this. That it does not proceed from today to tomorrow, 
that officials - with a terminal date regulation - should pay in, this is fully clear.
Yet it should nevertheless be. Why? A pensioner in Germany receives an average
3,400 euro pension for the same employment time 

Alice Weidel (AfD): Clearly less!

of a tradesman, a member of the Mittelsand, a quite normal doctor, a nurse, thus 
all those who have paid into the retirement system. The average pension of these 
is nevertheless 1,200 euros for men and 1,000 euros for women. Do you find that just?
Precisely that is the injustice, and that is the two-class society in the retirement which
we want to abolish. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Question not answered!

[trans: tem]