Björn Höcke, December 3, 2025, Conscription

Thüringer Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 8/29, pp. 53-54. 

Right honorable Frau President, right honorable colleagues. 

Colleagues, like Boris Pistorius, for Germany, Fabien Mandon, the French chief of the general staff, for France, wants the war efficiency [Kriegstüchtigkeit]. He demands – I cite: The country needs to be ready to lose its children. 

Right honorable colleague members, please now in your thoughts take your son or grandchild in arms, feel his heartbeat and think of all the happy moments with him. And now please imagine how he with arms and legs torn away lies in a minefield and slowly bleeds to death. Imagine how a hollow charge has pierced the wall of his panzer and all lives in the interior are extinguished by a gigantic welding beam [Schweißstrahl]. Imagine how he as a prisoner of war is tortured. First, his ears are cut off, then his genitals, finally his eyes are put out. After hours, the torturer ends his agony in that he pours benzine over him and ignites. Thus, right honorable colleague members, die in a war young men of 18, 19, 20 years, who have established no families, who to some extent have still not lead their lives.   

Right honorable colleague members, it is here about the revival of the conscription [Wehrpflicht] in a quite concrete situation – a situation which is stamped by a war in the Ukraine and a showtime bellicosity of German politicians throughout the cartel parties. The people out there feel it is plainly not about their own way of life, since that assumes love of one’s own, that assumes patriotism. Yet the politicians of the CDU and Linke disdain this patriotism. And precisely that is the decisive point in the present discussion of the conscription. 

The revival of the conscription here and today cannot be well founded by the old parties. Therefore, young people and their parents intuitively and rightly reject the war efficiency project. The young people note that when an obligation to fulfill an ostensible securing of their future is exacted from them, at the same time the ruling Politik destroys this future piece by piece. What shall the young man, who knows no patriotism and no tradition, defend with a Bundeswehr? 

Yes, what shall he defend? Drag queen displays in kindergartens, the de-industrialization, the plundering of the social security system, the festival of lights secured with concrete walls, which earlier were called Christmas markets, the mass immigration which makes him feel foreign in his own land, the Schuldstolz? 

Right honorable colleague members, I want in closing to emphasize: Before one, single young man should under compulsion again enlist in uniform, this state needs to finally again become a state for the Germans – for the Germans. Freely directed and oriented toward German interests and clear in an understanding of the people. Before young people in this country are again taken by the Politik into the obligation, the Politik must first finally again enter into the obligation to its own people. 

I thank you for your attention.   

 

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, November 14, 2025, Pensions

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/41, pp. 4777-4780. 

Right honorable Frau President. Dear colleagues. Esteemed citizens. 

This motion here was already twice on the daily order; you have twice set it aside, the last time four weeks ago. That’s not so bad; since there is already another motion: “Reform of the Politicians’ Pensions – Admit Bundestag Members into the Statutory Pension Insurance”. Exactly which is from us and which we have also debated. I need say: I have seldom experienced such a dishonest debate, full of false assertions – an unbelievable lack of respect for the voters. 

“Nothing in the world is so powerful as an idea whose time has come”, it is said. Yet here the Herr Hugo did not know the German old parties. One of these ideas is the reform of the politicians’ pension, as it was prepared already in 2013 by the independent commission on questions of members’ rights. Which was set up in 2011 by the elders council, and then indeed due to the sustained criticism of the existing system. Norbert Lammert was then Bundestag President and he said the principal problem is – cite – simply not avoiding, by means of the statutory construction, the suspicion of self-serving. For all that, he spoke only of a suspicion. 

The results of the commission we all since 2013 have passed on like a hot potato from government to government, and I say: Many of today’s colleagues apparently wanted that all of this remains so, as it is, otherwise you would not have so done down our motion. In that regard, the inclusion of the Bundestag members in the statutory Pension Insurance is nevertheless something you all supposedly want – as far as Herr Heveling. For colleague Grau, that was even a question of rectitude. Colleague Dieren was also quite firm, as besides his entire delegation. Only: Why did he then for an entire six minutes talk past the theme of statutory Pension Insurance? What should that be? And in the Union too is the thought, ja, not entirely unknown. 

Yet, as we of the AfD reminded you of that with our motion, it was again set aside because we supposedly were in the wrong, as Herr Grau meant. Note: When we as AfD want the members to pay into the statutory account, then naturally it’s not out of fine motives like your party, but so to divide or make the parliament ridiculous, to sow mistrust, or – fully besides the point – to keep people in a psychological dependency. To such a need it again comes! That came from Herr Nacke who for half his speaking time insulted us with citations from a book from 1978. I call that conspiracy blather [Verschwörungsgeschwurbel]! 

Dear colleagues, it can be done so; I understand that. But I betray to you a secret: It’s all the same to the citizens out there. The citizens out there have a nose full of your partisan purity  orders [parteitaktischen Reinheitsgeboten], they also no longer want to hear of all that does not go. The citizens want you to get on the ball and show that you don’t take yourself as more important than the interests of the citizens. 

It is thus quite simple: Either you are for the inclusion of the Bundestag members, thus with us, in the statutory Pension Insurance – then go and work up a concept with your government majority; nothing other do we require with our motion – or else you do not want it; then leave it and let the voters decide what they think of it – nothing more and nothing less. But please stop further cackling [weiter zu verkackeiern] at the citizens. 

I thereby come again to the motion which is presented here today to us and which unfortunately – and I say this with real regret – once again turns out to be the usual socialist cheese. Here is found for example the demand for doubling the income threshold, and indeed for all. That would presently be around 17,000 euros. 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): It would be a first step!

And as always, higher pensions would be cut. With other words: When all alike are poor, you are happy. In the end is the single pension. 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): Read and understand such a matter!

To that extent, it is insolent of the Linke colleagues to accuse us, as it happens, of wanting to enrich ourselves because we – note well, only for members – want to moderately raise the income threshold, and rather tall talk from this kind of a party of the greedy for which it’s basically always about the money, namely other people’s money.   

Dear colleagues, a pension system is not reconstructed with redistribution. Where that leads, we also presently see in the pension package. Only here the money comes not from the rich, but from the young who at sometime need to pay for the entirety, and indeed without any guaranty that, from that, something remains for them. It cannot so continue. 

Dear colleagues, it is five before twelve. The business associations, the employees, the experts council, and not last the young, at least those of the CDU, know this. And the citizens know it, too; they no longer believe a word from you. 

What use is it then to write into the law horrendous sums of tax subsidies beginning in 2029 for   the pension when these billions are not there? And I say: They are not needed, since the solution lies at hand; it’s called pension reform. This however would mean not to again shove off the responsibility to a commission and until the cows come home, as you now for decades have practiced, but finally to begin with the measures which are needed. Then you could renounce namely dubious tricks like the setting aside of the catch-up factor. 

There are so many possibilities: A more rapid increase in the capital-covered expansion – for that, we have already put forward in the last legislative period a substantially better alternative for an early start pension with our motion for a Junior Savings Deposit – , the relief of the Pension Insurance from the ballast of non-insurance benefits, the inclusion of additional groups in the statutory Pension Insurance. And we require measures to prevent old age poverty. It is nonsense that, for example, the new mothers pension should be counted in the basic security. As the AfD, we for years demand a 25 percent allowance for the elderly in the basic security. 

And I thereby come to an additional false assertion which is here gladly called in against us, that namely the AfD had no proposals of its own, as it better goes. And that’s not right. We even have a better alternative to the so-called active pension, a motion in which the self-employed plainly do not again remain outside, and in which employees are plainly not as ever disadvantaged. This motion is also put forward. Additional motions for private and occupational [betrieblichen] provision will follow. 

Dear colleagues, you see there are many opportunities in the pension area, only – and thus the circle closes – the motion put forward does not belong to that. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Ruben Rupp, October 9, 2025, Chat Control and Child Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/31, pp. 3285-3286. 

Right honorable Frau President. Honorable members. 

I am proud of what we have done this week. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): You have done nothing! 

For in common with the critics of the planned EU chat control, we have so built up a massive pressure that the Federal government has given way. They now want to vote no in Council at the vote for a possible baseless mass surveillance. I say one thing quite clearly: Yesterday was a great victory for the citizens, a great victory for the AfD, and a great victory for the freedom – You there laugh, I know. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): That is a joke!

The theater – and now listen closely, colleagues of the Union – up to this week on the theme of EU chat control is a disaster for the Federal government. It shows how disunited you are, as before, on the question of baseless mass surveillance. For long, the Federal government held itself to be covered on the theme of chat control so as to be able, in an expected clandestine ballot in the EU Council, to vote for chat control. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): What rubbish!

Otherwise, why for weeks have you not been concerned for clarification? You would have been able to do that. How so just now, shortly before the vote, a no of the Justice Minister? Where is the Chancellor’s no? That, I miss in place. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): He’s not at all here!

No, you let it run, managed it up to the close in secrecy. And even in the Digital Committee yesterday, you refused to discuss this point publicly. We know quite precisely why: Because all the world would have seen how divided this Federal government is on this question. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That is just not right! 

            Armand Zorn (SPD): That is not at all right!

Since while the Justice Minister in council openly expressed herself for a no, Chancellor Merz clarified yesterday on X – I cite: 

            “The police protect us all. For that, they require the use of drones and a                              preventive telecommunications surveillance.” 

Quite obviously Chancellor Merz himself wants this mass surveillance of citizens, just so as the Interior Ministry. 

I say one thing to you: If it is not so as I here say, then position yourself here as Federal government – the Chancellor and his Vice-chancellor – and clearly declare that in the entire legislative period it will never come to a vote of this government on chat control!

If you want to do it honestly, do it now and here! We will therein measure you. And of course Chancellor Merz and the Vice-chancellor are again not in the hall. 

I say to you: It scares the citizens – me too – to know that the Chancellor personally and the Interior Ministry continue to want this chat control. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That’s not right!

And it is foreseeable that you will again start such an attempt when the time is ripe. Should you again take a run at this initiative – this I say to you – and dare the first great step for an authoritarian state which, utterly without basis, surveilles the citizens, then you will encounter bitter resistance from the side of the AfD delegation. We will exhaust to the maximum all political and judicial means so as to prevent the surveillance state. You can be sure of that. 

            Günter Kirings (CSU/CSU): Does Putin see it so? 

            Peter Boehringer (AfD): That is so embarrassing! Violations of basic rights!          

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU, indicating speaker): He is embarrassing!

And no, the baseless mass surveillance does not effectively protect our children from disgusting pedophile perpetrators, from child pornography and child abuse. Since even the German child protection union rejects this EU madness as disproportionate and ineffective. And you quite precisely know: The AfD is sometimes the toughest when it is about the fight against child abuse. 

While the leftist bloc up to parts of the Union preferably wants to re-socialize the perpetrators, we want deterrence. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): Yes, madness!

We declare war on cuddling with the perpetrators, for our motto is “protection of victims, instead of protection of perpetrators.” 

Yet for you here in any case it is not about that. Since in regards the EU chat control, it is as with the Digital Services Act: As a reason advanced for a show window. You’ve even said: “We want to block illegal digital content” – okay – and: “The digital area is not allowed to be lawless” – okay. Yet then it was again expanded to disinformation, hate and agitation, and now the EU censors the free opinion. No, we want no state censorship apparat and no baseless surveillance. Exactly therefore needs be again abolished even so the Digital Services Act. The citizens’ freedom is not negotiable. 

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Espendiller, September 16, 2025, Fiscal Policy, II

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/23, pp. 2316-2317. 

…We here in Germany need to do our household chores, and we require the money, much too much of which at the moment is being transferred to the European Union, in our own country. We therefore reduce our contribution to the EU by about 18 billion euros. And now one may call  me out, that it does not go, there are binding treaties. Then good, it agrees with the treaties. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Ach!

Yet treaties are not laws of nature and can be changed. Best example: Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” of Great Britain. When it was very bad in her country, she negotiated with the EU and extracted the so-called “British rebate”. Great Britain thus every year saved billions in contributions to the EU. Why should that not also work for Germany? Germany is ultimately the largest net payer to the EU and the stability anchor in the euro area. When Germany falls, the euro also falls. And against this background, we are very optimistic that the EU would prefer to agree with Germany rather than lose us completely. It thus may go, if one really wants to. 

Where do we save? The Federal government provides a large portion of its new debts for military expenditures. As you know, we have ever criticized the bad equipment of the Bundeswehr and committed ourselves in recent years to corresponding budget increases. Yet the present Federal government here exceeds every reasonable measure and schedules for this year debt-financed increases which, in fact, it simply cannot expend this year. For this reason, we in an AfD budget expend 10.7 billion euros less for military spending and thereby come to a total outlay in the defense area of 76.9 billion euros. And that is again very much money. Yet also in the following years, the Federal government in the military area simply wants to expend too much and too quickly. Decades-long shortcomings plainly cannot be compensated with a wave of the hand. 

Yet you not only thereby worsen Germany’s position, but also with delivery of military material to the Ukraine. In 2025, you want to spend all of 8.7 billion euros for the weapons deliveries to the Ukraine. And these costs we eliminate completely. You only prolong the unnecessary dying in the Ukraine. Besides, the Ukrainians themselves have meanwhile grasped this, which is why the number of deserters ever further increases. Yet that interests no one in the government, because reason is on vacation. 

Less reasonable besides are the exorbitant costs for a misguided climate policy. We do not at all save the climate with the deconstruction of industry in Germany. Here too, the red pencil. And we therefore can save with the elimination of the senseless climate projects of the climate and transformation funds around 37.6 billion euros, and indeed completely. 

Still what? The Sozial budget of Bärbel Bas is next, which blows up in our faces. It is absolutely right that we support the pension account with tax monies. That, our pensioners after a life of hard work have honestly earned. Yet it is wrong that we extend it, at the cost of the working middle, to millions of Bürgergeld recipients who are fully capable of earning. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): That’s just not right! What nonsense                                                are you then telling?

Moreover, it thus comes to that around 50 percent of the Bürgergeld recipients have a foreign citizenship. That is further evidence for the uncontrolled mass immigration into our social system. By means of a corresponding adjustment of our laws, we may end this social injustice, and here save an additional 14.6 billion euros. 

And still more money is to be found in the Federal budget: One billion euros as a “reconciliation payment” to Namibia can, for various reasons, go. 

In regards the political foundations, we eliminate means to the sum of 444 million euros. In addition, the Federal government plans to expend one billion euros for the performance of integration courses. The driver’s license in Germany needs to be paid by oneself; we can thus expect a German course will be paid by oneself if then one wants to have the German citizenship. 

The Union-led Federal government in addition herein continues to breed its own political opponents and carry on the financing of the leftist “Democracy Lives” programs. With its abolition, we save an additional 200 million euros. 

This and much more we can eliminate and, except for a few lobby groups, no one in Germany would notice. 

Yet what millions of people in Germany would notice in the purse are the reliefs of our AfD budget, the key points of which I want to here go into. 

We are of the opinion that the present climate policy damages the economic position and burdens the consumers with charges. The CO₂ price and the CO₂ emissions trade we therefore eliminate completely. 

And the trucking fee we cut by around 2.25 billion euros so as to lower the transportation costs in Germany. Everyone who drives to work with an auto, or who plans the next large purchase for the family, will notice that in the supermarket balance. These alone are 23 billion euros of relief for the consumers in Germany. 

And while we’re especially on the families: When both parent spouses are earning so as to feed the family and somehow pay for their own home, the budget account also suffers under the enormously high non-wage costs [Lohnnebenkosten]. This money does not at all land in one’s own account, but goes directly to the state. In our finance planning, enough money is available so that we can stabilize the social security system with 7.7 billion euros. This would prevent that in this year the contribution rate and with it the non-wage costs increase, and that keeps workplaces in Germany. 

Yet not only duties, but also taxes we in our AfD budget can properly save. Alone in regards the wages tax, that is one billion euros. With the income tax, we come to around two billion euros on top of that.  And the enormous burden on our Mittelstand we can reduce with three billion euros in the corporate tax. And the solidarity surtax with 12.45 billion euros we can completely eliminate. Work shall again pay. 

And we also want that good earners continue to remain in the country and plainly not – as presently – in large numbers of around 200,000 men and women each year leave our country, and thereby as contribution- and tax-payers permanently fall out of our social system. 

By means of the lowering of the CO₂ duty and the wage tax, together with the other measures, the small earners at the same time will be relieved by us, so that they can again live from their own income. 

All together, we relieve the citizens with 66.1 billion euros in our draft budget. That is impressive! 

In sum: Saving is something for the advanced. We have shown there is an alternative to limitless debt creation, and put forward a reform budget which we will also still further construct. We are convinced: This is the draft which Germany now needs, and which has what it takes to kindle a dynamic and again bring our economy into the running. 

The AfD is ready, and we hope the Union soon gives up its failed experiment with the SPD so as to include itself in the rescue mission for our country. We can, simply and profoundly, no longer afford this firewall. 

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Espendiller, September 16, 2025, Fiscal Policy, I

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/23, pp. 2314-2316. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear spectators in the hall and at the screens. 

The budget consultations for the 2025 Federal budget lay behind us, and for us in the AfD Bundestag delegation, in regards these consultations, was precisely one, single question decisive: How can we financially relieve the citizens and the economy. For this of all is exactly the decisive question: What can we do for the citizens and the economy so as to finally relieve them from the high taxes and duties. This question we need to answer. And for my delegation, I can say: We have answered this question. 

Seen fiscally, the essence of our state, simply said, rests on two pillars. That is for one, the demography; and that is for the other, a functioning economy with sufficient jobs. 

As everyone in the country knows, the demographic development has for us as a state long since slipped away. The birthrate in the year 2024 has again fallen, and currently lies at 1.35 children which a woman has on average in Germany. That means for our levy-financed pension system, sufficient contribution payers are no longer available. And that, in turn, means that at some time sufficient people will no longer be there who generate for our people their pensions. 

For the pension is plainly no credit, but one pays with his contributions the pensions of others, and indeed in the hope that later, when one is himself at pension age, the younger may generate the pension for oneself. That this at some time for Germany becomes a problem is for long recognized. And for just as long was nothing actually done about it. Yet the day of the Big Bang is meanwhile no longer at a far distance, but one can now already very well see it. 

The 2025 Federal budget pension grant runs to, believe it or not, 134.4 billion euros. That corresponds to 25.8 percent of expenditures from the core budget; thus, an entire quarter. Taken from the total tax revenue of the Federal government, the quota for the pension grant contributes even 34.7 percent. That is to say, that from the entire tax revenue of the Bund, every third euro flows as an added contribution into the Pension Insurance. And we speak not of an upper, luxury pension, but of a pension level of 48 percent. 

In that the demography has long since slipped away from us, we are therein reliant on that the second pillar of our system functions: The economy. Without a properly running economy which offers enough jobs, I also have no more contribution payers who finance the pensions of our seniors, and I also have no more tax revenue from which every third euro can be stuck in the pension. 

In regards the health contribution, there is besides exactly the same basic problem; which is namely financed also by contribution payers. When we in Germany have fewer jobs, then we have fewer contributions for our sickness insurance, and then arise also the financing gaps. Since the number of insured and of treatments do not, ja, decrease. On the contrary, also here, everything becomes more expensive. Alone in the statutory sickness insurance in the coming year, 6.3 billion euros are lacking. In the year after, 12 billion are lacking, the year after 18 billion, and at the end of the legislature it is 24 billion euros. 

These holes I can either fill by which I increase the contribution amount for the insured. That would however make more expensive the labor factor which now already is no longer at a competitive price. Or I need also here again to go with tax money. 

The situation is in any case dramatic, and we are directly in a rapidly intensifying fiscal crisis. For us as the AfD delegation is it thereby clear as sunshine that a reasonable Politik needs now set everything, without compromise, on the stimulation of the economy, since that which in no case may happen is that still more jobs are lost to us which would have a consequence that we have still fewer contribution payers for our pension and sickness insurance systems. 

We in the AfD have told you all of this in the last ten years here, and said what you need do so as to prevent this downfall. Yet you did not want to listen. I have still well before my eyes the statements of the political competitors and of the mainstream press that the evil AfD paints the devil on the wall and with fear-mongering hunts for votes. That would certainly not at all agree with the bad economic situation. – Yet we knew that we were right. You needed to concede that this summer, since the Federal Statistics Office has subjected its numbers since 2008 to a “reappraisal”, and – hoopla! – it at once came out that we since 2023 are not in a situation of economic stagnation, but are stuck knee-deep in a recession. That which was plainly just Fake News has thus now become reality. 

During this phase of statistical denial of reality, valuable time has been lost in our country. The last three years, thus the time of the Ampel  government, was the time that the rudder in Germany would have been able, and needed to be, turned about. It needs be said quite clearly: Now for some comes any help too late; and from now on, it becomes really unpleasant; since the money is gone. It is gone, and it does not come again. 

The country’s citizens are fully right to rage over that. Yet the hard reality is: It helps not at all. We need to so deal with this situation as it now is, and here we all again sit in the same boat, whether one wants that or not. 

With our programmatic approaches we could in the last budget years still achieve savings relatively easily. Yet for us now will it become more difficult. Precisely here besides, the good, old debt brake would now come strongly to bear. Since it forces politicians who simply cannot say no to nevertheless give consideration to where one could then save, and what of all could then be structurally changed. 

            Markus Frohnmaier (AfD): So it is!

This Federal government freed itself from this constraint, as you know, with its debt putsch and unashamedly piled up the most crass indebtedness which this country has ever seen. Yet we of the AfD delegation have ourselves further enjoined this same restraint and maintain in our budget plan the original debt brake. 

And despite that, we would relieve the citizens and the economy. How do we do this? We have presented a total of 1,000 motions to amend the Federal budget: In Herr Klingbeil’s draft budget, we can dispense with 111 billion euros from his state expenditures in this year. 

Where then do we see the greatest savings potential? Let us begin with the payments to the European Union. In the 2025 draft budget, the Federal government plans payments in the sum of 33.7 billion euros to Brussels. This EU payment shall next year rise a further 14 billion euros to 47.7 billion euros – quite as if money here in Germany simply grows on trees. Yet each year there flows back to Germany just some 12 billion euros. And thus we finance every year with two-figure billions in contributions to whichever bureaucrat who regulates our cucumbers and deposit bottle caps. And from that, we have purely nothing. 

Far worse is that the EU in addition also wants to destroy our automobile sector with a combustion engine Verbot. 3.2 million jobs are here in play. What that means for our country, I have plainly explained to you. 

While the German economy thus shrinks, we in addition subsidize with our EU contributions our EU neighboring countries to which our firms now emigrate. Inquire for once at Schöneck in the Vogtland how one finds it that the firm TechniSat closes its plant there, all co-workers are laid off, and the production will now be shifted to Poland – and that, after the co-workers there for 33 long years have performed truly good work. 

That may no longer continue...

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, May 15, 2025, Pensions Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/4, pp. 220-221. 

Herr President. Frau Minister. Dear colleagues. Honored citizens. 

The statutory old age provision in Germany is a renovation project. For millions of people, the pension does not suffice for a living. Even those who worked life-long, and always had an average earnings, need be happy if they just make ends meet – still. 

You all are acquainted with the numbers and know that the financing of the statutory provision is nearly marginal, and this in future will not be simpler but more difficult, even though the contribution already today is so high and even though the state takes so much taxes as never before. We here have often debated on it. The demography is in this regard only one factor, and you know that. Yes, the pensions crisis is a crisis of state legitimacy, and it needs to be solved. Yet how, as it happens, by the two parties which are responsible for the entire misery? As it happens, by the CDU and SPD, which without intermission have governed in the last decades, of which 15 years together? We thus here look at decades of pensions policy failure by SPD and CDU, according to the motto, “It could, it should, it would, it needed to” – decades in which the pension was piece by piece hollowed out and slashed. 

I want for once to tell this here because it is so easily forgotten: First in 1983, the pension sickness insurance contributions were payable, then later also the contribution for care insurance – first for half, then from 2004 completely. The same was then done for the company pensions and direct insurance, even back-dated from the 2005 tax year, to say nothing of being gladly doubled. And with all of this, the pension was ever further reduced. For that, the citizens were indeed promised an adjustment which however never came.    

That the Riester pensions do not work is known for decades. Despite that, up to today, over 86 billion euros in promotion sums were swallowed up. What one would have been able to do with that! Dear colleagues and citizens, in the entire time other countries have constructed large stocks of capital for their pension accounts, and are therefore better here than we. Perhaps also because their governments have not continually sold out to the contribution money of the insured. Since what was produced over the years, quite especially by the SPD in non-insurance benefits at the cost of the contribution payers – that goes into the billions. All of that is money which is lacking for the pensions. 

Now shall all be better with the SPD and CDU. Only, when I look at the coalition contract, then I see a further so into the blue. When I no longer know what to do, then I found a works circle. 

            Peter Aumer (CSU/CSU): You could make a proposal, Frau Schielke-Ziesing!

That means here a “commission”, and is the umpteenth pension commission following Rürup which is commissioned to square the circle. The last one, as is known, could not even once agree on a a common result. Yet the problem is nevertheless long since no longer the analysis but the lack of political courage for a decision. How wooly are the coalition’s proposals on the pension theme has already been shown regarding the first concrete proposal of the new Minister Bas, which takes on the inclusion of officials in the statutory Pension Insurance. That was again torn up, scarcely had the light of the Bild newspaper caught sight of it. Good, such a change of system may not be taken on in a heave-ho proceeding, yet in the long-term such a consideration is sensible. 

Yet perhaps one should begin with something smaller. We as the AfD already in the last legislative period brought in a motion for inclusion of politicians in the statutory Pension Insurance. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Sehr gut!

That would be a good signal and a first step – not here unconditioned by the financial volumes, but because then politicians themselves would finally be affected by the consequences of their policy. Perhaps then the pension policy also would change, namely for the better. 

             Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!

Of course, you have rejected this motion on account of the firewall. 

We as AfD delegation in the last two legislative periods brought in a whole series of motions to stabilize the pension system, among which were measures for fighting poverty for pensioners in the basic security, for example higher allowances for pensioners, or the expansion of insured circles which are now sold to us by the other delegations as just the thing. Some of it you similarly copied from us, like the one-time payment for the victims of the DDR pension bridge. 

From the equities pension, the Ampel took its leave, Gott sei dank. This construct was a real barrel buster. Only it’s a shame that with your idea for an early start pension, you again jump much too short. I do not understand that: Ten euros per month, and the remainder the insured himself should then set aside? That is still much too little. With our junior savings deposit, we have long since put forward a sensible alternative. There, you can re-read and reconsider how, with straight-forward contributions for today’s newborn children, is saved in the long run an authentic asset – without debts, financed by taxes, without a social contribution. So goes long-term pension policy. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, September 27, 2024, Pensions and Children

German Bundestag, September 27, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/189, pp. 24585-24586. 

Frau President. Dear colleagues. Honorable citizens. 

In the Middle Ages, it was common to attempt to heal the sick by draining them of blood by the liter – the sicker, the more and the more often. That, for most, did not turn out well. At some time, one became smarter and abandoned that. Gott sei Dank! 

Yet the Federal government still today thinks of stabilizing the statutory pension by operating on one artery after another. I do not now speak by way of exception of non-insurance benefits, but of the irregular and multiple cutting of the Federal added subsidy within three years until 2027 of a total 10 billion euros. These lopped-off billions will not be invested in, for example, a Generations Capital, but they are simply gone, disappeared into the depths of the Federal government’s budget holes – money which is lacking for the Pension Insurance. 

And thus these cuts lead to that the Pension Insurance’s reserves empty much earlier, and for that the contribution increases earlier and further than planned. The German Pension Insurance Union figures into the reckoning contribution rates of 22.4 percent up to 2040. It is not mentioned that it remains there. The basic reason for that is the limit line for the pension level, which was called up by the SPD only so long as to maintain the shaky construction until the Ampel is history, and a new government of shambles may sweep up. 

In this situation, the government tinkers with a so-called Generations Capital at the pump – beyond the debt brake and with the corresponding subsequent costs. The Federal Audit Authority has calculated that the yield from this Generations Capital can bring by 2039 a relief of the contribution of, believe it or not, 0.4 percentage points, if at all. The German Pension Insurance is rightly concerned that this more likely may not come; which is to say, contribution payments to the account for that will also be ordered. With an authentically funded support for old age insurance, as in, for example, Finland, Canada, Japan or Sweden, this Generations Capital has nothing to do. 

Ja, but why then is it done? Because Herr Scholz has so decided and Herr Lindner so far does not contradict, 

            Hermann Gröhe (CDU/CSU): Where is he, actually?

even when this does not suit colleague Vogel. And precisely that, I do not understand. His colleague Mordhorst said quite openly – cite: “The SPD lies in the face of pensioners and workers.” The Federal Budget Authority expresses it somewhat more finely and figures the added expenditures for the pension package until 2045 at, believe it or not, 507 billion euros, paid by the young people and those yet to be born. 

            Markus Kurth (Greens): But distributed over 20 years!

It is now well established that these generations will not at the outset receive from the pension account what they may pay in; in any event, that the increasing contribution for each employee will soon amount to nearly a year’s vacation. The question is whether these generations can then still at all afford a vacation. 

All of that, dear colleagues, needs not be. It is possible to stabilize the pension system, long-term and prudently. I am thus glad to here today bring in our motion [Drucksache 20/11847] with the title “For a Secure Pension for Our Children”, which does precisely that: Secures the pension long-term, and in fact quite without new debts. 

That will be possible by means of a goal-oriented savings plan for which the state pays in monthly 100 euros for every child of a German citizen, born here and living here permanently up to the age of 18. What is gathered there shall then be administered by a community foundation [Gemenschaftsstiftung]. As a result of the long time period and the compound interest effect, it is possible, with a very reasonable commitment, to save up real wealth specific to a person. We are speaking here of a total 21,600 euros per child, stretched as was said over 18 years. That yields, with a return on capital of four percent, around 214,000 euros. Dear colleagues, that is a generations capital – sensible, feasible and affordable. 

Many thanks.

[trans:tem]

 

Beatrix von Storch, July 5, 2024, Pro-Life and Criminal Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23698-23699. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The left-greens can primarily do one thing: Discover ideological fighting words. Today, a new one: Sidewalk harassment [Gehsteigbelästigung], discovered by gender ideologue Ulrike Lembke. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): What rubbish is this, then?

All forms of relevant harassment are nevertheless today culpable, or are a violation of an ordinance. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Right!

Thus why now Gehsteigbelästigung? An Orwellian newspeak. 

You want to demolish basic rights of Christians and defenders of life. For you, it is not about climate clingers who block hundreds of thousands of motorists, or about tens of thousands of leftist extremists seeking to prevent with violence an AfD party day, and also not about Islamists who in their fighting prayers conquer our public space. You find all of that to be fantastic or democratic or acceptable. Yet when Christians and defenders of life make use of their right to freedom of opinion or freedom of assembly, then you hollow out [drehen Sie hohl]. 

The Federal Administrative Court on 23 May 2023 clearly held that defenders of life may demonstrate in front of pro-family abortion centers. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for a term?

I cite: 

“There is in a pluralistic society no right to remain entirely exempt from the confrontation with divergent religious presentations or opinions.”

With that, all is said. 

You present in your draft law the assertion that, by means of sidewalk harassment, counseling offices and abortion clinics would be hindered in their activity, or those pregnant restrained from entering them. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): No, the women are hindered in their counseling possibilities. You need to read it correctly, Frau von Storch!

A dumb thing, that is a dumb thing! You know that. For that, there is no statistic, there is no survey, there are no police reports, there is simply nothing. You discover a problem which does not exist so that you have a reason to proceed with state repression against Christians and defenders of life. 

It is little surprising that the preparation for this comes from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which in 2021 published an evaluation with the title, “Possibilities of Statutory New Regulation in the Conflict Field of Sidewalk Harassment”. The author: Sina Fontana. And here it becomes interesting, since Frau Fontana has written another evaluation with the title, “Universal Women’s Rights and Islamic Law”. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Oh! An interesting alliance!

Fontana therein wrote that the Scharia is quite wonderfully compatible with women’s rights. That is the Greens: Criminalize Christian prayers because against women’s rights, but praise and extol Scharia because good for women’s rights. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Unbelievable!

The central point: Who like the Greens and the Linke defend Scharia, for them it is not about women’s rights, but for them it is about the fight against our culture.           

Canan Bayram (Greens): You have a Scharia fetish, Frau von Storch!

And in this culture war, the green Verbot parties want to silence critics, naturally with friendly support of the FDP. One prayer or the protest of defenders of life: 5,000 euro fine. Here in the Bundestag, to name a specific first name in a specific context: 1,000 euro fine. The Green catalogue of fines for forbidden expressions will soon become very long. 

            Gero Clemens Hocker (FDP): Expensive for you, Frau von Storch!

This law is unconstitutional and breathes the spirit of a totalitarian Green ideology. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): A court still decides, and not you, what is compatible with the constitution!

And the CDU wants to forbid the prayers, but thinks for that the right of assembly suffices; you have indeed said it, and Frau Breiler also on Wednesday in committee. Alone the FDP – not alone the FDP is responsible, but it shares in all of this. 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Your confusion is noted.

Alone the AfD stands for defense of life and freedom of opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to me you will not forbid prayers, and also not the expression of the male name of Markus. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, April 15, 2024, Abortion

AfD Kompakt, April 15, 2024. 

Federal Family Minister Lisa Paus already made clear, before the formation of this Commission, that her political goal is general impunity for aborted pregnancies. Even from its name, it may be concluded that for this Ampel government it has at no time been about an unbiased “Whether”, but only about the “How” of taking down the hurdles for a termination of pregnancy. Consequently, the thereby constituted working groups were extensively filled with women who themselves in the past either had attracted attention with politically approved positions, or had been active for corresponding associations like “Pro Familia” or the “Deustchen Juristinnenbund”. 

In the Commission report, the focus is one-sidedly shifted from defense of unborn life to the alleged self-determination rights of women. The hereto given jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court is thereby fully disregarded, and a liberalization of abortion law frankly presented as constitutionally imperative [verfassungsrechtlich geboten]. How the resulting defenselessness of unborn children to the end of the 22^nd week of pregnancy is reconcilable with their human dignity guaranteed by the Basic Law, the report nevertheless does not explain. 

The Ampel undertakes the public attempt to annul the defense of unborn life in favor of the right to abortion. The recommendations of its Commission merely serve as a first step of a long-term project to establish abortion as a natural “human right”. This hides the serious danger that the priority [Stellenwert] of human life in social consciousness will be generally degraded. This under all circumstances must be prevented. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mariana Harder-Kühnel, November 16, 2023, Islamization

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/137, pp. 17298-17299. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Certainly in the last days has it become clear: The alleged conspiracy theory of an increasing Islamization of Germany is in fact a terrifying reality. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Such nonsense! 

The pictures of pro-Hamas demonstrations on German streets allow no other explanation: A situation over which you are now overheated, yet a situation which you have brought about. 

These demonstrations are only the current high point of a creeping Islamization of Germany which is expressed in many facets: So-called honor killings, forced marriages, yet which is also manifested in the symbolic occupation in day-cares and elementary schools by means of wearing the children’s head scarf, and in polygamy which unfortunately becomes ever more prevalent. All of this is the result of our own weakness, of a woke culture, which hates all that is one’s own and our cultural identity as well as our tradition. And this self-hate makes one susceptible: To welcome culture and to mass migration, 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Apparently you really need to hate yourself.

to children’s head scarves and to polygamy. It becomes high time to esteem one’s own, instead of sacrificing it to the foreigners. Otherwise, Germany becomes a caliphate. And we want no caliphate. We want a Germany that remains German, dear friends. 

Let us thus begin with the little ones. Let us ban the head scarf for children under 14 years in schools and day-cares. Since this head scarf for little girls is nothing other than a continual bodily and psychic disciplining. Free running, playing, swimming, etc., with it is scarcely possible. The writer Fatma Bläser, who as a child was herself forced to wear a head scarf, sees therein an “endangerment of children’s well-being”. The head scarf may become for young girls a “second skin” by which they are robbed of their freedom and childhood. It suppresses the children of today and makes them the suppressed women of tomorrow – and that may no longer be. 

And no, the children’s head scarf has nothing to do with religious freedom, since there is in Islam no religious precept for children to wear it. Until a few years ago, it was fully unusual in Islamic countries. 

The state of law is not allowed to tolerate it when little girls are thereby abused for transporting Islamist messages into our kindergartens and schools. For it is nothing other than political child abuse, what is happening here. This political child abuse needs to be forbidden; since it leads to parallel societies, it leads to the dis-integration of young girls and to the suppression of women. Such power demonstrations of political Islam have nothing to lose in Germany. 

These days, this becomes more clear than ever. The French and Austrians have long since recognized this and forbidden the head scarf in schools – in France besides, with the votes of the socialists. Let us thus defend young girls from the head scarf, and let us defend Germany from parallel societies! 

Polygamous marriages are also an expression of these parallel societies and they lead to a parallel justice. Where that leads to is shown in the many so-called honor killings. A stop to them must  be ordered. To them must be opposed law and order, and in fact our law and our order. Here, the statistical registration of polygamous marriages in Germany is required. Here, a general ban on religious early marriage is required. Here, polygamous marriages concluded in foreign countries need to be annulled. Here are required rigorous penalties for violations against the ban on bigamous marriage. 

Children’s head scarves and polygamy do not go in our country. Germany may no longer decay into a multicultural test laboratory; since it is not compatible with these imported conflicts. There must finally again 

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Please come to a conclusion.

be recollected its culture and tradition. Germany must finally again be German. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Martin Reichardt, November 9, 2023, Children’s Basic Security

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/134, 16885-16886. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The Children’s Basic Security [Kindergrundsicherung] will be praised by the green Ampel as a heart’s project. Yet we all certainly know what actually are the heart’s projects of this green Ampel: Disconnection of the climate-friendly nuclear power plants, weapons deliveries to war zones, 

            Nina Stahr (Greens): The theme!

comprehensive de-industrialization of Germany and unbridled mass immigration. That is the political framework with which you drive families in Germany into poverty. Yet, for that, you will be rightly punished throughout Germany at the elections, and das ist gut so. 

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Pride comes before a fall!

The expenditures in connection with flight and migration alone in this year amount to 48.2 billion euros. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): At least!

For your big toss for families, you have a crummy 2.4 billion left over. And that is a scandal which speaks for itself. 

All of this of course becomes the more perverse as your entire social rhetoric is continually sabotaged by your own concrete policy. What you give to families on one side, you take away from them on the other side. The effect of your Kindergrundsicherung immediately dissolves  into nothing in the face of shocks which families receive in regards purchasing, the glance at the corresponding accounting and the energy prices, ladies and gentlemen.

So it is to be designated as one thing only, namely a labeling swindle. And here we have once again politically placed you, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Oh!

For the Kindergrundsicherung, it is so as for the Bürgergeld [citizens’ wage]. Much money has been inequitably pumped into imported poverty since 2015. The number of foreign children in receipt of transfer benefits has tripled since 2010. 

Kai Whittaker (CDU/CSU): Here, someone apparently has not at all peeked at the law! Had no desire to read the legal text, Herr colleague. Or what? 

Martin Gassner-Herz (FDP): It was too complicated for him! He understood nothing!

In 2010, it was 303,962 children, this year it is 935,000 children, most of whom come from Syria and the Ukraine. And I say to you: The opinion of the people in this country makes clear that the understanding for a policy which gives away the social benefits to all the world and drives one’s own people into poverty has finally been used up, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Crude nonsense! 

The Kindergrundsicherung is an additional instrument for the financial benefit of all the world and provides an additional incentive for migration into our moreover wasted social system, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Emilia Fester (Greens): Can you not for once think of something new?

In addition, the Kindergrundsicherung is an additional building block within the left-green reconstruction of society. It is in line with an entire chain of similarly mounted projects, as, for example, the so-called children’s rights in the Basic Law. All of these projects have one thing in common: The child shall be removed from the family social relation and transferred into the hands of a supposedly kindly, leftist political state. And we will not let you get away with that! 

            Anke Hennig (SPD): That is just ridiculous, what you are saying here! 

Nina Stahr (Greens): Because you do not tolerate that children have their own opinion! Inconceivable!

You propagandize for the de-coupling of the child from its parents. Greens and SPD especially want state command over the children’s beds. Yet we will prevent that, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Nina Stahr (Greens): We want that children have rights! That is a difference!

The families, the parents – that is for all of you just a burdensome intermediate level which hides a risk. You want that children be raised and financed not by their parents, but better by leftist ideologues, and exactly so raised as you would gladly have it. Yet this also we will not allow, ladies and gentlemen.   

            Stephanie Aeffner (Greens): You haven’t cast a glance at the law!

In conclusion, the following may be said: With this law, you go a further step along the way, well-known by you, to the disempowerment [Entmündigung] of the parents, the disempowerment of families, and the happiness of all the world. 

            Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Please come to a conclusion.

Yet we of the AfD will not participate in this. For we as the only ones say: Our families and our Germany first! 

            Annika Klose (SPD): Name one concrete example! Name just one!

Many thanks.

           Anke Hennig (SPD): Ridiculous! 

 

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, September 5, 2023, Family Ministry

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/117, 14461-14462. 

Right honorable Frau Minister. Ladies and gentlemen. 

As first section of the sectoral ministries, we discuss this year the Family Ministry budget. I wished that the serial order would also reflect the government’s setting of priorities. Yet that unfortunately indeed remains just a wish. 

We have now already heard it many times. The big theme in this year are the savings guidelines and primarily your decision to cut, as it happens, the parental allowance [Elterngeld]. You and your colleagues from the red and green delegations then gladly refer to the guidelines from the Finance Ministry, and then all of you in the Ampel openly blame one another for this decision; we have today already heard it. The citizens, or in this case the parents, as always pay the bill. 

Frau Minister, you have the departmental responsibility for your Ministry and your budget. You alone thus bear the responsibility for which places will be cut. 

Here I would gladly remind you that you are the Family Minister. The word “Family” is not there for nothing and not for nothing in the first position. Why do I say this? Because apparently at the budget deliberations within your  government you indeed have not represented the interests of the the families, but rather the particular interests of your green colleagues and the interests of your ideological friends in diverse, so-called non-governmental organizations and networks with queer, gender or whatever ideologies. Say it: The families needed once again to be neglected. 

Frau Minister, as it happens, to save in regards Elterngeld is the last thing that would occur to me as the AfD delegation’s budget member. There is still plenty in the expenditures in your Ministry where one can save – we ever again pointed it out to you and your coalition with our motions to amend in the past. One need only correctly set the priorities. 

I want however to direct the attention to additional places in your budget draft. There are additional areas where you have regularly cut, namely in regards the child and youth policy around a full 220 million euros, and in regards the volunteer services around a total of 75 million euros. Also, the cutting in the area of the future package for exercise, culture and health of around 95 percent – that is, almost to zero – we regard most critically. 

There prevails a near unanimity among experts who say that the Corona preventive measures have inflicted an essentially greater harm on the children than has been admitted, especially as it concerns their sports performance. Meanwhile, only 12 percent of children are categorized as “fit” – 12 percent! To just now save in regards one of the most important programs which should counteract this, or indeed to let the program run out completely, that is a fully false signal. 

Where you have once again effected no savings measures is in regards the entire NGO network, as by chance in the program “Demokratie leben!”. Here, 200 million euros continue to flow unhindered to dubious organizations and associations which, among other things, preach Islamic fundamentalism or indoctrinate children with gender ideology. 

You also have not saved in regards the promotion of the youth organizations of political parties. That means, all parties here represented – with the exception of one, naturally – get additional tax money for their “non-political” work. 

And naturally was nothing saved in regards the so-called anti-discrimination commissioner. Frau Ataman is allowed in these times to lay hold of a budget multiplied nearly three times since 2020, 

            Felix Döring (SPD): That’s not right! There is less there! Have you at all read                        the draft?

And I am sure that you, as in the previous budget deliberations, will extend even more money. For you see overall discrimination, and the more discrimination you discover, the more money you of course require to fight against it. 

            Felix Döring (SPD): Das sind Falschnachrichten! 

            Sönke Rix (SPD): Fake news!

Many questions arise in regards the child basic security. The world is haunted by quite different numbers. Of late was there talk of 2.4 billion euros – not from next year, but first from 2025. On the website of your Ministry, the most comprehensive social reform in years and the mounting of a real fight against poverty will be spoken of. It should thus become the big push. 

Yet if one now considers that the Kindergeld presently costs around 50 billion euros per year, and in regards the child basic security we are speaking of 2.4 billion euros, that does not sound so big a push. 

            Leni Breymaier (SPD): Yawn! Yawn!

The raise will not even cushion the inflation, to say nothing of creating an increase for the families. Even if you figure in an additional rise in the Bürgergeld [citizens’ wage] for children from 2025, the numbers do not suit the basic security which you so proudly present. Yet on that we will deliberate in the next budget, not in this one. 

In conclusion, we can say of this budget plan: We of the AfD delegation see a considerable need for correction in regards the draft budget of your Ministry, and of course nevertheless look forward to the budget deliberations. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): To be sure! 

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Zeising, July 17, 2023, Old Age Pensions and Poverty

AfD Kompakt, July 17, 2023. 

An increase of 15 percent in one, single year: Such figures do not fall from heaven, they are the result of a total failure of pensions policy. All the talk of a “rich” Germany alters nothing of the facts: Now already every third pensioner receives a pension below the basic security (2021: 853 euros); a large portion of the old age pensioners are scarcely above that. 

So far today, more than a quarter of all pensioners are considered “officially” as poor – that in the future will be the rule rather than the exception. It is becoming more difficult: Germany is the laggard in Europe as is it pertains to real property and asset formation. That means: For whom the statutory pension no more suffices, he falls unchecked into poverty. Precisely that is happening now. Exploding living standard costs, rising rents, all the – avoidable – consequences of wrong political decisions, impact unchecked on the seniors’ living situation. 

Of a 3,000 euro inflation premium, as the ministers and state secretaries receive, the pensioners can only dream. And, thus far, they are still poor, even with a pension increase (most recently, 4.39 percent or 5.86 percent in respectively western or eastern Germany). Since this, as is known, is accounted for in the basic security. In other words: He who has, to him will be given; who cannot defend himself, goes away empty. That is the outcome of the “progressive coalition” in Germany. 

How it may otherwise, we have already indicated in our key points paper on old age security, and presently with our motion (Drs. 20/7461). 

 

[trans: tem]

Christina Baum, December 16, 2022, Vaccination Side-effects

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/77, pp. 9239-9240.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

In a few days we will again celebrate Christmas, the feast you would have preferred to forbid to people in the past two years,

            Andreas Philippi (SPD): What!

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): Such rubbish!

            Marei-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): Not Christmas. You ought                                        to be forbidden!

the feast which many experienced for the last time – in solitude, and then dying in solitude and being buried in solitude. This picture is representative of the entire suffering which you have inflicted on people in these two years. The compulsory preventive measures decided on by you have brought unbelievably so many tears and pain upon our country that this time no one will forget.  

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): The AfD brings pain and suffering!

Children were compelled to mask and set in a corner separated from their school comrades. They needed to freeze at open windows only because they could not wear no mask for reasons of health. The test swab was painfully shoved in the nose, and each time their pulse beat faster

Ralf Stegner (SPD): You would have been able to recite more pleasant                Christmas stories here!

from fear of a positive result with attendant isolation. One mother wrote to all members that in the morning her daughter no longer wanted to get up because the school was a hell. Just as this left my colleagues in the Landtag cold, the people’s suffering did not reach you in the Bundestag.

            Nezahat Baradari (SPD): Such rubbish!

            Lars Lindemann (FDP): The Christmas story goes otherwise.

And just as you were wrong in regards these preventive measures, you are also wrong as to your extolling vaccination. The trivialized little jabs, which should guarantee for an entire year complete protection,

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): The word “science”, you do not know by name!

without side-effects,

            Leni Breymaier (SPD): No one said that!

became an injection which guaranteed neither protection of others nor oneself nor a protection against a serious case,

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): The AfD does not understand science!

yet which can bring serious side-effects up to death.

            Christos Pantazis (SPD): Humbug!

I cite Dr. Beate Jäger, internist, from a ZDF report of December 4, 2022:

            I have treated children here who could not longer lift the head,

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): Internists treat children?

who could not speak. I yesterday saw the mother of a girl who for 8 months stares at the ceiling and must be fed; previously completely healthy…

These are just a few cases of tens of thousands who were vaccinated utterly without need because for them Corona never presented a risk.

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): The risk is the AfD!

All of you here, from the far left to the CDU, are responsible for that, for what has happened and also for what is still happening.           

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): What happened to them?

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): The AfD is responsible for division!

So as to avoid further harms, I urgently beg you: Indemnify and rehabilitate the victims, and protect our children,

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): We protect our children by abolishing the AfD!

so that you may finally end these dangerous vaccination experiments!

And stop with this mask mania! I cite Florian Hoffmann, chief doctor at a children’s intensive-care station in Munich: In many German children’s clinics presently prevail situations which recall those of the third world. The stations are full to bursting, and parents with seriously ill children need in part to spend the night on bunks. – Responsible for the increased incidences of serious RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] cases are, according to Hoffmann and other physicians, compulsory masks, closing of day-cares and contact bans.

            Andrew Ullmann (SPD): Correlation and causality need to be understood!

Every single one of you really should very precisely ponder whether he wants to further burden himself with blame. Vote in favor of our motions [Drucksache 20/4891].

            Kathrin Vogler (Linke): No, no way! No thanks!

That would be a start.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]