Alexander Jungbluth, February 11, 2026, Slovakia

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-11(3-0290-0000). 

Frau President. 

With a change of the constitution, the Slovaks have rebuilt the unrestricted primacy of national law ahead of EU law. That is a victory for the national identity of the Slovak people and the sovereignty of the country. Yet when the Slovaks protect their own people, they will of course be requited by the EU by means of a treaty violation procedure. Brussels wants to annex to itself ever more rights and thus further undermine the sovereignty of the member states. In that regard, the EU emblazoned on the flag the motto “United in Diversity”. Yet real diversity means confirming and defending the distinctive cultures, peoples, identities in Europe. The woke agenda counteracts precisely these goals. We should therefore be grateful to the Slovaks that they defend themselves against this attack from Brussels. 

 

[trans: tem]

Petr Bystron, February 11, 2026, State of Law in the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-11(3-0213-0000). 

Frau President. Dear colleagues. 

We shall here discuss the Socialists’ motion on the state of law in the U.S.A. – thus, what a mockery! As it happens, this European Parliament this week rejected a discussion on what the European Commission has broken in the last ten years. Namely, the Commission for ten years has censored legitimate political opinions and facts, and at the same time also paid the media for defaming critics of the EU. We receive this information, as it happens, from Washington, from the U.S.A.; there, it was worked on, in contrast to here. Here, the discussion was rejected, and it was preferred to speak in plenary session on a two-years old Draghi report, or on the acceptance of Andorra and San Marino – ja, that is important to us.   

You are disturbed that Trump finally proves that you for years have lied: Remigration is possible, deportations are possible. We require in Europe exactly so an ICE. We need to act effectively and deport the criminal foreigners. And on that account, you here have instigated this discussion and have leftist extremists like Salis here speak at the podium. That is a mockery of democracy. 

 

[trans: tem]

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

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

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

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

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

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

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

Fritz Merz and many other political powers. 

            Marcel Bauer (Linke): And Stefan Brandner!

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

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

4,500 proceedings in year 2024. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you pause the time which continues, gladly. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[trans: tem]

Thomas Fetsch, January 15, 2026, Rental Housing

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

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

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

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

Right honorable President. Honored members. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Mimimi!

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

            Anna Luthmann (Greens): Ach so!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Such rubbish!

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

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

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Nein!

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

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

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): You too! 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): You too!

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

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

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

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Hahaha!

You can be sure of it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tobias Peterka, December 18, 2025, NGO Finance

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/50, pp. 5860-5862. 

Frau President. Dear citizens. 

A ghost haunts Germany – ominous, it is in every mouth, yet is difficult to hold. It is the much cited civil society. Ascribed to this strange tautology are indeed magical powers: It can in an instant save our democracy, and conveniently has the ever exactly correct, thus leftist opinion and agenda. – Let there be an end to this ghost story from the ARD and ZDF! Every awake ten year old meanwhile knows that there is with us a public, state-promoted, opinion guideline 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): What nonsense!

and is beside the reality which every citizen sees if he does not, like you for example, go through life with eyes closed. For precisely that reason is required this motion [Drucksache 21/3301] for the installation of a formal investigating committee. For precisely that reason, we need to illuminate and without compromise clean out the state and party entanglements with so-called NGOs. The term “non-governmental organization” degenerates in a Germany with open eyes into a joke. There are according to strict socialist logic of course many governmental front organizations, 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes, you know about that!

financially and careerist wired with Greens, SPD and those still more unappetizing. The approach is not complicated: It is simply the old left approach, “Public funds are enough there”, perverted and driven to the extreme. In any case, typically leftist are the lying leaders with Democracy on the banner, wanting to stifle precisely that. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes, you know about “stifle democracy”!                                                            That is your theme!

You attack the party strongest in the polls nationwide with financed snipers because meanwhile you quite precisely know that, by fair means, no more cabbage is to be grown against us. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Financed snipers from Moscow, you take care of yourself!

You thereby undermine the most basic rules of democracy; and that, we can no longer accept. Here you can cry as you want; you thereby only confirm it. 

The famous Federal program “Democracy live!”, for example, received in the last years over 600 million euros. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): “Democracy Live!” is a problem for you! You want                            “Democracy die!”

It will be so passed on according to practice to thousands of project functions of which the government, according to its own statement, has not the least data. There is often simply some price tag; since Antifa phrases and pedigrees were besides always more important in regards the top jobs. Listen! – “Frau Klingbeil” co-directs the Initiative D21, and “Herr Göring-Eckardt” United4Rescue. Naturally all selflessly for the cause, it is understood. 

            Dirk Wiese (SPD): You member Wenzel Schmidt made 450 euros. Do you say                                         something on that? You want to exclude him, I hear.

By countless NGOs melded to ministries and incited against the opposition are citizens vilified, doing the very thing you accuse us of, namely dividing to your heart’s content – and before all before the Bundestag election. 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): How is it actually with your intra-delegation democracy?             May Herr Lucassen at all still come? Or has he received from you a ban from the                hall?

To the dear Union which here is silently suspect. You at the time had correctly recognized this. 500 questions were fired broadside at Scholz and Habeck. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): 551!

Yet what then happened? Scarcely had the powder smoke blown away, and one sailed with the SPD into the coalition harbor and once again fraternally divvied up the tax money. Bravo! That, I name betrayal of truthfulness and a willingness to explain – actually, ur-conservative values.           

            Helge Limburg (Greens): Your speech is an insult to every true conservative!

The voters meanwhile precisely know: It is still found at the CDU/CSU at most with a microscope. At least vote for our motion now! Unless of course you want the hanky-panky to continue, which in the end – this, you precisely know – will be directed against you. Still, it is perhaps not too late. 

Because the same was again intended, we wanted to prevent droll democracy workshops and youth formation – which for the AfD ultimately have something against an authentic, free democracy. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Yet you too want public funds!

We ever again vehemently demand a Bürger society without GEZ broadcasting, leftist spying, or fear in the workplaces; further, direct democracy and the direct election of high state officials. Your mudslinging at this impeccable stance meanwhile falls back on you. The citizens are not so blind and immature as you would gladly have them. I am thus really excited – from you, the Linke, I know it – by what next from the Union here will be led into the field. 

What is, for example, with an authentic condition of democracy, the recognition of the Basic Law by means of diverse Antifa projects? Does that perhaps come sometime, or would that still be too much spotlight on networks shy of the light, which reach deep into hardened anti-semitism?           

            Helge Limburg (Greens): “Light-shy networks”, “anti-semitism”. All precisely                                        your themes! 

            Katrin Fey (Linke): Anti-semitism comes from the right!

Or perhaps again comes punctually at the State legislative elections anti-right advertising via the Federal websites, as 14 days before the Bundestag election at the Federal Family Ministry? 

            Helge Limburg (Greens): How many of your communications politicians are actually             active in terrorist associations? Tell us that for once! How many of your members                were investigated on account of accepting foreign money? How many of the AfD’s                Bundestag offices have actually been already searched?

May perhaps the BUND, promoted with millions, be called upon, besides climate propaganda, to protest against everything right of center? 

For you, is it okay that HateAid and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation agitate against everything conservative, 

            Katrin Fey (Linke): That’s not right! You’re not conservative!

and still laugh yourselves sick that BlackRock Man Merz, with bended knee, empowers you with the purse? Apparently, the answer is “ja”. 

Since: Where is the moratorium, the draining of the swamp by means of a guidelines competence? It will not come, since then the therein ailing SPD would immediately be at the battlements. When already the wicked right citizens push old auntie in the direction of single digits, 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): That is beloved democracy! And you want to exterminate it!

then the preparation still needs be a bit further cultivated out of sozi-green student teachers and violent Antifas. Clearly, that might run under an orderly retreat. And, here and there, you could still do it, 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): We are not like you, Herr Peterka! We are not like you!

as it was at peak woke, thus total air supremacy of the leftist dementia, like before Corona. Yet you know quite precisely: This time is past, and will with luck never come again. 

Thus: Let us wind up this swamp! Since in one thing even your troops are right: From history, one must learn. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Your speaking time is exceeded, and therefore your                                           speech is to end.

Let’s tackle it so that a self-service in our country can never again occurs. 

Many thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]

Gottfried Curio, December 3, 2025, Naturalization Fraud

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/46, pp. 5362-5363. 

Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Last year there were nearly 300,000 naturalizations, almost a doubling from two years ago. Wherein this massive rise? For decades, the naturalization prerequisites were ever further weakened, ultimately under the Ampel again watered down. For the already questionable claim, the waiting period was degraded from eight to five years and thus almost halved, multiple citizenship as a rule accepted. From the idea of a once exacting integration, this government has completely removed itself. 

Background: Leftist parties attempt to rehabilitate their polling percentages by means of the import of naturalization sozial cases. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): O mein Gott!

For the costs incurred, the taxpayer is allowed to pay. Policy of the finest, hostile to natives! The Union has retained the mentioned new regulation. German interests are all the same. The main point, to become the Chancellor party. For that, one bravely gobbles every toad tossed to him by the reds. Cynical power-opportunism is at the end stage, ladies and gentlemen. 

For many of the illegally immigrated advantage grabbers, however, even the remaining minimal requirements are still too much work. They resort to naked fraud. Authorities are meantime so overburdened that blatant falsifications are winked through. We hear of massively falsified  course certifications 

            Johannes Rechner (SPD): No, for once, an example! Say one example!

in regards naturalization tests and language verifications. And in the social media runs the lively commerce with examination questions and solutions of naturalization tests. 

Inquiries yield that the phenomenon has been known for years. Police and foreign authorities proceed on a very high Dunkelziffer – cite – “of fraudulently attained naturalizations”. The talk is of a – cite – “loss of control”. 

Typical case: The attested language level – not at all present; of the content of the filed commitments – not the least idea. The vice-chairman of the police union therefore demands a moratorium for naturalization as well as a comprehensive examination of certificates of the last two years.

Our motion [Drucksache 21/3024] accordingly demands: A pause of naturalization and grant of residency titles until a fraud-secure procedure is developed, prevention of the application of falsified certificates and the sale of examination questions quite openly in the social media, as well as a new examination of all residency agreements and naturalizations issued since January 2024. For allotted authorization documents is required, to the maximum, the return from control loss to a control by the state of law. 

A merely personal statement for testing of adherence to the constitution is fully insufficient, and formulas of acknowledgement are rather imputed lip service, even when they are understood purely verbally. Only a systematic research by the naturalization authorities of the applicant’s social media activities can prevent the naturalization of extremists. Yet the Union racks its brains over how quickly after the fraud may one again be tested. In that regard, it is still not about the few who were caught, but about stopping this possibility of fraud. 

Yet this government quite obviously has no interest in an orderly situation in regards naturalization. We see an absence of control in the language level – only the adherence to the constitution shall be verbally ensured –, a lack of will to develop a fraud-secure procedure, and a complete absence of a backed-up examination. All of this shows just one thing: In the Union is there once again fear in the face of the coalition partners who would not be ready to stop the abuses. German interests are also there sacrificed to the peace of the coalition. 

Ladies and gentlemen, nip it in the bud! 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): That is however a quite nice, hefty historical                                                       comparison you bring in here!

Let us certainly not first begin by leaving as is an allotted authorization document in the hands of people who have only obtained this by means of deception prior to its issuance, which inflicts harm on our country. Otherwise, one day we will have a government which comes to power by means of deception prior to the elections and, in the briefest time, definitively ruins the country. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, November 17, 2025, Digital Omnibus

EU Parliament, Brussels, November 17, 2025, P-004565/2025 Commission. 

Written Question. 

The Commission has signaled that the forthcoming Digital Omnibus may introduce changes to concepts of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as compatible use, purpose limitation and secondary processing. Since the GDPR forms the legal foundation for the European digital identity wallet, digital travel credentials (DTCs) and other identity and biometric systems, any modification of these concepts could materially affect the guarantees on which these systems were legislated. 

1. Will the Commission explicitly confirm that any expansion of ‘compatible use’ under the omnibus will not enable personal, identity-linked or biometric data collected under the revised Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation (eIDAS 2.0) or for DTCs to be repurposed for analytics, AI training, or security or intelligence objectives? 

2. How will the Commission ensure that identity or travel-related data cannot be further processed beyond the purposes that were originally authorised by sectoral legislation, even if the horizontal GDPR framework becomes more permissive? 

3. Does the Commission commit to maintaining strict purpose limitation for all identity and authentication systems irrespective of any omnibus-related GDPR adjustments?

Hans Neuhoff, October 21, 2025, Russian Frozen Assets

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-Rev(2025)10-21(2-0458/60-0000). 

Frau President. 

The planned seizure of Russian asset values is not an expression of the state of law. It is its hollowing out. The immunity of states is a fundamental pillar of the international order. Does the EU want to bring on the downfall of this order? A reparations credit sounds harmless, yet here it is nothing other than legally disguised expropriation. The EU thereby opens a Pandora’s box. When we today seize reserves of a foreign central bank, who then tomorrow still trusts the euro? The warnings come not from us alone, but from the ECB, from the IMF and from Euroclear itself. They all speak of a risk for the financial stability, of capital flight and loss of trust. 

Colleagues, the EU states apparently no longer possess means to still meet the Russian advance. Your latest project is thus an expression of sheer desperation. Wars make new realities. Finally arrive at the reality. 

…Herr colleague, the error from which you proceed consists in that Russia would ever make reparations payments. That, Russia, plain and simple, will not do. How then do you want to force Russia to make such reparations payments? You cannot do it. The consequence is: Either the central bank reserves will in fact need to be expropriated, or else the EU remains seated on its offerings to the Ukraine. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, July 8, 2025, Georgia

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)07-08(2-0512-0000). 

Frau President. Colleagues. 

The European Parliament gladly presents itself as a moral institution, as a judge of good and evil in politics. For months, the Parliament is enraged that the Georgians in October 2024 did not elect the government which the EU had foreseen. For months, the committees and panels brood over how to punish the Georgians for that. The Georgian government also then even has the shamelessness to itself set aside the EU accession negotiations until 2028 which nevertheless would have been gladly done. 

The EPP report on Georgia shall now indemnify for that. It presents itself as a singular catalog of sins which thereby exceeds itself in demands which quite clearly contradict EU law. Personal sanctions without judicial process or collective punishments are just two examples of that. No word of acknowledgment that the Georgian government has kept its country out of the conflict between power blocs into which it, like the Ukraine, would have been so gladly driven. With this report, the EU will overstep the institutional mandate and disregard the principle of sovereign equality. The ESN delegation will decisively reject this report. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mary Khan, June 19, 2025, Hague Judgments Convention

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)06-19(4-0103-0000). 

Herr President. 

This convention shows how international cooperation without Brussels patronization can work. Great Britain is no longer part of the EU. For that, we have to thank the patience and steadfastness of a free people; of that, the British can be proud. And yet it succeeded in creating legal certainty on an equal level. 

A sovereign state, a treaty of international law, clear rules, quite without expense in the billions of an officials’ apparatus, without ideology – precisely that is our way. We need to reduce the European cooperation to the essentials: Interior market, protection of exterior borders and voluntary, bi-lateral treaties between sovereign national states. 

Instead, we experience an EU which inflates itself into a political super-state which costs billions and which meddles ever deeper in national decisions. We will vote in favor because it shows how an authentic partnership appears: According to a state of law, voluntary and sovereign. 

 

[trans: tem]

Bernd Baumann, March 25, 2025, The Will of the Voters

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/1, pp. 1-2. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Today, the new Bundestag finally meets, one month after the election. Why just now? Because Union, SPD and Greens as a party cartel prevented any earlier summons; so they could, with the majorities of the old Bundestag long since voted out of office, as good as three times alter the Basic Law, against the will of the voters. In a newly elected Bundestag, there would never have been a majority for that, no 1,000 billion euros state credit, no end to the debt brake, and no compulsion for climate neutrality in the Basic Law, ladies and gentlemen. 

The voters wanted what was completely different. Millions therefore voted for Friedrich Merz and the CDU; because he had  promised that. Yet the CDU once more confirmed, with its gigantic election fraud: Who votes for the CDU, receives in the end left-green, he receives open borders, mass migration, 72 sexes and the red-green rainbow flag high above the Bundestag. 

            Friedrich Merz (CSU/CSU): Speak to the order of business! 

            Elder-president Gregor Gysi: Dear Herr Baumann –

This unholy power cartel of Union, SPD and Greens, already in 2017 with the entry of the AfD, played a pre-arranged game. 

            Elder-president Gregor Gysi: Dear Herr Baumann, I ask you to speak to                                the order of business, since it is about that presently. 

The order of business was quickly changed so to prevent that the eldest in life experience might open the Bundestag; that would have been an AfD man. Only so as to prevent that, this cartel of SPD, Union and Greens changed the order of business. Not the eldest might open, but he who sits the longest here in the Bundestag. Thereby were all of the AfD excluded, because all were new. How pitiful, how perfidious was this action! 

And because this still applies today, Gregor Gysi opens the Bundestag and plainly not Alexander Gauland who, following parliamentary tradition of hundreds of years, is the legitimate and true Elder-president here in house. Other than Gregor Gysi of the Linke, which is the legal successor of the SED, the Wall defense party, Alexander Gauland for 40 years of his life served in the CDU, among others as leader of the Hesse State Chancellery. Yet for today’s Union is a figurehead of the radical left preferred to a deserving veteran from their own, former conservative ranks. That says everything about today’s CDU, ladies and gentlemen. 

It therefore brings you simply nothing to withhold from us our rights in regards Elder-president, Vice-president, in regards the committee chairmen. 

            Elder-president Gregor Gysi: Herr Dr. Baumann, your speaking time is                                    already past.

The majority of voters have long since had enough of the left-green cartel. 

            Elder-president Gregor Gysi: I ask you to come to a conclusion.

We of the AfD have doubled, are stronger than ever before. With your tricks, you will not prevent our rise, ladies and gentlemen.

            Elder-president Gregor Gysi: That’s right, but it doesn’t double the speaking                        time. 

But in case sometime you want to undertake what is positive for Germany: Our hand is always out-stretched. 

 

[trans: tem]

Björn Höcke, March 20, 2025, Financial Coup d’État

Thüringer Landtag, Plenarsitzung 8/12, pp. 2-4. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable colleague members. Right honorable visitors in the gallery. 

I want to beforehand admit that I stand before you today with a feeling that represents a mixture of rage and sorrow: Rage and sorrow over what happened two days ago in the German Bundestag. We need to speak of it, that we have a political special situation in Germany these days. On that account, the summoning of this special plenary session has been enormously important, and was a correct decision which we as the AfD delegation have reached. I very much regret that even in regards this important theme that Minister-president Voigt is not in the house. 

Right honorable colleague members, on February 23^rd of this year, the state sovereign of the Federal Republic of Germany with a perfectly clear result voted out of office the Ampel government. The Greens lose massively, the SPD brings in its historically worst result and the FDP left the Bundestag. The message of the voters was clear: We want no further so, we want a fundamentally new direction in the German Politik, we want less multi-culti, we want less climate policy, we want less debt, we want more fiscal solidarity. The was the clear message of the sovereign. 

And what did the CDU do, did Friedrich Merz do, in fellowship with the red-green government? They summoned the old, voted out of office Bundestag, already dissolved by the Federal President, so to go around the new power relation to enforce a debts policy of madness to the harm of the German people. 

            Liebscher (SPD): That is just nonsense, stop spreading lies! So far, the                                    new Bundestag has not yet met…!

What we experience here, right honorable colleague members, what was passed in the Bundestag two days ago and tomorrow in the Bundesrat shall brought to a conclusion, is nothing other than  a financial policy coup d’état. Ice cold, a career-crazed Friedrich Merz slapped the voters in the face. Merz broke a central election promise of the CDU and piled up a debt mountain of a trillion, and that only so as to receive in hand the key to the Chancellor’s office, only so as to make his latest, striven career step. This, right honorable colleague members, this conduct is without character and is one of the low points in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. 

The pre-history of the financial policy coup d’état well needs enrage every democrat. Still in February, Merz vigorously twittered – just a few days before the Bundestag election, he did this – against the Ampel government’s debt orgy, especially that of the SPD, and posed as a defender of the debt brake. 

Yet it was a central election promise of the CDU to maintain this debt brake and let justice be done for coming generations. And now leading CDU representatives and leading Green representatives disclose that the debts coup was already planned in November 2024 in a CDU committee, and this quarreling with the Greens was pure election campaign noise. The Union simply lied impudently in the face of the Germans. 

Do you know, right honorable colleagues of the SPD and right honorable colleagues of the CDU, that this theater which has now been contrived in the German Bundestag – the Greens are, Gott sei Dank, no longer present in the sovereign house in Thüringen – 

            Liebscher (SPD): What you contrive here is theater!

do you actually know what an injury you have caused? Do you actually know which injury you have inflicted on the German democracy? 

I am much underway in Thüringen, I speak with many of Thüringen’s citizens, and ever more say to me: I no longer have the feeling of living in a democracy; I have the feeling of living in a simulation of democracy. And I cannot contradict these people. 

The changes of the Basic Law and the undermining of the debt brake first in the Bund and then in the States have fatal effects for coming generations. Thüringen, right honorable colleague members, right honorable State government, must set itself in the Bundesrat against this financial policy run amok. An abstention does not suffice for this highly important theme. And your conduct and this circumstance which I have just sketched, it is now to be discussed, and I therein rejoice. 

Many thanks.

[trans: tem] 

 

Alice Weidel, February 11, 2025, A Future Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/212, pp. 27657-27660. 

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

Green-red has failed. The citizens have enough of the ideological transformation of left-green sectarians as they sat here in the government. 

Katharina Dröge (Greens): This entangled, ideological undertone with which the speech begins!

Yet you also, Herr Merz, have already failed; since what you are pushing is deception of the voters. You will be able to implement nothing of your promises with red-green. That belongs to the truth. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): This self-hypnosis!

You will thereby merely attain that the work of destruction driven to the extreme by your Angela Merkel and green-red will be continued in our country. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is just weird!

And the reforms required to again bring Germany in order you will thereby only be able to needlessly delay but, Gott sei Dank, no longer prevent. The migration change, the economic, energy and taxation change, and the change of course in social policy will come. And it will only be possible with the Alternative für Deutschland. 

How would appear a Germany in which the Alternative für Deutschland as a governing party were involved in its program? 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): It would be Hell! 

            Manfred Todtenhausen (FDP): Gott bewahre uns!

It would be a Germany with secured borders and a border defense which effectively barred illegal migration and cross-border criminality, and let into the country only those who have a legal claim to residency in our country. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Otherwise, is everything in order with you?

It would be a Germany with a modernized asylum law which no longer opens the floodgates to abuse by illegal immigration, but is directed to the reception capacity of our country. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): Even if you speak slowly, it is no less wicked,                                                what you’re saying!

This Germany would have a from the ground up reformed – 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Your delegation here is snoozing. Make it more exciting! 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is really malignant!

I do not know what you here are actually doing in the Bundestag. You, the Greens, what are you doing here actually? 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): What do you want?

You are at best only hecklers. 

Manuel Höferlin (FDP): Thus says the righteous!

You are at best only howlers. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Look in the mirror!

This slobbering kindergarten here! What are you doing actually? You make politics against the people. 

Our Germany – as per our vision of the future – would have a from the ground up reformed residency and naturalization law which is open to all those who work here, pay taxes and identify themselves with the German national state, its culture and legal order, and want to make a positive contribution; which, however, consistently shows to the door notorious criminals, religious extremists, and all who wish to exploit its reception readiness. In this Germany, respect for the law and equality of all before the law would again have unconditional validity. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): Yet you are working with concealed symbols. What then are they for symbols?

It would be a country in which the citizens’ freedom is not just a lip service, but stands at the center of the order of laws and values. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): Say what that is for symbols!

Frau President, this heckling! 

President Bärbel Bas: You can also say that of your own delegation which                        continually calls out. 

Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU, to Alice Weidel): You are very sensitive here! Take a peek at how quickly you become sensitive!

Your job, Frau President, is a neutral guidance of the presidency, and this slobbering in fact goes to the broadcasters. This is really painful, and these people have no business here in the Bundestag. They all have never worked in their life. You’ve never worked in your life. What are you doing here? 

We want a country in which the basic right of individuals of the right of defense against – 

It again continues exactly so. Get to work! From the week after next, you then have the opportunity for that, when you are further decimated. Go to work, find yourself a job! 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): A bit weak today! 

            Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Greens): Even your own people find that painful!

We want a country in which is the basic right of the individuals’ right of defense against state encroachment, and which is not misunderstood as an allotted act of grace which could be incumbent or be withdrawn at pleasure after it has been put over with tax-financed campaigns. 

Katharina Dröge (Greens): That makes no sense, what you put forward here. That is simply absurd!

The courts in this country have the foremost duty to pronounce uncorrupted, independent law, without regard to person or opinion. The filling of the highest judicial offices would be withdrawn from the influence of the parties, and the state prosecutors’ offices would be independent of the Justice Minister’s directions. Since the judiciary as the third power has to control and not confirm the executive. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): You can tell that to to your friend Donald.

The Constitution Defense and the domestic secret service would be fundamentally reformed. The citizenry, the entirety of the state’s citizens, is the sovereign, and should be able to give its vote not only in parliamentary elections but also be able to vote in peoples petitions and referendums on the central questions. 

We want direct democracy in Germany. 

President Bärbel Bas: Frau Dr. Weidel, do you allow an interim question                                    or interim remark?

No, the others have not.

In this country, there would be a multifarious media landscape which would vie to control the powerful, to keep in check precisely these, instead of serving as a megaphone. The competition would no longer be distorted by a plentiful public media sector, financed by compulsory fees, which has long since surrendered its journalistic independence. The broadcasting fees would be abolished. 

Tax money in this country would be levied frugally. A good government pays attention to what the citizen has earned by hard, grinding work, and claims no more of that than is unconditionally necessary for the fulfillment of its few core duties. A good government respects its citizens’ property, and does not appropriate it with asset, inheritance and invasive income, business and consumption taxes. 

A well governed state does not interdict and manipulate its citizens. It does not distribute its money to all the world, and not to ideological lobby groups 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): You discriminate against only the minorities!

and favorites so as to purchase their servitude. It leaves in the taxpayer’s pocket as much net from gross as possible so that he can provide for himself, his family and his future. It does not meddle in his private lifestyle, and also not in the raising of his children. And it does not presume to ideologically indoctrinate the people from childhood to old age. 

Stefan Schmidt (Greens): What are you actually talking about here? A manometer!

A good government knows that the bürgerliche middle class and the business Mittelstand are the backbone of welfare, prosperity and Bürgerlichkeit in the country. A good government knows of business freedom, and it only attends to and is concerned that are guaranteed domestic and foreign security, the order of the state of law and a functioning infrastructure, a performance-oriented, ideologically neutral education system as well as social provision for those who are unable to help themselves.   

A functioning Germany would have its own, strong currency 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): The reichsmark!

which ensures that the national wealth created by the people remains in the country and retains its value. 

            Saskia Esken (SPD): Then good night! 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): The D-mark, or what?

It would have its own independent central bank, a Bundesbank which does not permit the Politik to cold expropriate the citizens by way of inflation, the most unsozial of asset taxes. 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Every reasonable person knows that that leads us economically to the abyss, the D-mark!

Without a functioning – now we are again with you – secure and advantageous energy supply, no flourishing economy! Germany has the highest energy prices worldwide because all of you here in this sovereign house have destroyed our energy infrastructure. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You would be the downfall of the economy!

Instead of further destroying our landscape with much too expensive, highly subsidized wind mills and solar mirrors, which deliver no electricity during darkness and doldrum, a reasonable government would therefore the subventions monster – 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Here, you yourself need to laugh!

No, I laugh over you, because you are not able to behave yourself. You cannot behave yourself. You are guilty of that to your voters. Simply make serious policy. You’ve driven this country kaputt. For that, you will be punished by the voters. You will in the next sitting no longer sit here. 

A reasonable government would therefore stop the energy transition subventions monster, and indeed immediately, fortify the re-entry into nuclear power, and indeed immediately, and advantageous oil and natural gas 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens):…buy from Russia!

and buy it where is most advantageous. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): Putin now rejoices! Did he order that in your speech? 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): You yourself do not take it seriously!

And a reasonable government would end a ruinous energy policy which only harms our own country. We will put an end to it. 

A good government would have a functioning army which would be taken seriously by allies and opponents, and a foreign policy which has considered balance and good economic and political relations with all neighbors and major powers. It would be a diplomacy which would not let itself be drawn into military conflicts, but enter as an honest broker for peace. It would have a foreign policy which continually has in view the interests of our own country, and with reason and skill represents, and does not make itself the laughing stock of the world with unworldly pedantry and moral-political megalomania. 

The conviction guides us that the sovereign national state is the foundation for democracy, freedom, welfare and self-determination. We know that politicians conscious of responsibility are the servants of the people in this country, and that the self-conscious representation of national interests is their foremost duty. We therefore enlist for a Germany which is based on respect for freedom, on the unconditional respect for law and equality before the law, and on unity in the defense of these values. 

That is our vision for Germany. Our hand is out-stretched 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): To Russia!

for all who want to realize it with us. And it lies with you, whether you grasp this hand. Our beloved country has long since deserved it.

 

[trans: tem]