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]

Christian Wirth, January 30, 2025, Migration, Public Safety, CDU

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/210, pp. 27274-27275. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

Ten years of catastrophic security policy in asylum questions, in questions of migration, in questions of the defense of borders, millions of people from countries of alien culture – Africa  and Arabic countries – expulsion of women, Jews, homosexuals from the public spaces, and exploding criminal acts – according to the criminal statistics – by those seeking protection. Suddenly, the voters experience that all the AfD has said, proposed and moved in the six weeks during the election campaign is really not inhumane, not “Nazi”, but thoroughly feasible – ja, if one has the political will, if one has a backbone. 

Why the change of mind? Because the migration policy and the security are for the voters in the election the most important criteria, and because the AfD’s polling numbers are rising. What is done against that besides the usual slander campaigns? I mention just “Correctiv” lies. Exactly, the AfD’s motions are copied. And for self-justification the AfD will be powerfully insulted in the motions. That is a novelty in the German Bundestag: Hate and agitation in resolution motions against the political opponent whose arguments are overtaken. 

Marc Henrichmann (CSU/CSU): Yet you want out of NATO, and out of the EU, and out of the euro!

Questioning one’s own policy of the last ten years? Non-existent. Yesterday, the vote was a test. Reason won, Germany won. 

Tomorrow it’s about the influx limitation law [Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz], a diligent gathering of our demands from two legislative periods. Yet it is already questionable whether the Union-governed States will grant to you, Herr Merz, the vote in favor in the Bundesrat. That is your true test as Chancellor and as party chairman. It may be doubted; since in the States govern the CDU’s diehards; namely, those who were politically socialized under Merkel, those who have internalized the Weiter-so, the “Wir Schaffen das”, the “Jetzt sind die halt da”. Those are for example the Minister-president Wüst in Nordrein-Westfalen and the Minister-president Günther in Schleswig-Holstein. That is also the governing Bürgermeister of Berlin, Kai Wegner. 

In regards deportations, the Union-governed States have poor quotas similar to the other States. And domestic security is primarily a State matter. Wüst and Wegner, CDU regents in Germany’s crime strongholds, stand directly for failure in domestic security. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CSU/CSU): Oh, man! Prejudices, prejudices!

The attacks in Solingen, Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg stand for that. Perpetrators who were umpteen times conspicuous, and despite the security authorities of the Bund and of the Union-governed States, have not gone into the net. The result: An embarrassing shoving-off between Bund and States and between the security authorities over the question of who is responsible. That was a show yesterday in the Interior Committee which cannot be imagined. 

Self-reflection and political responsibility? Non-existent. On that account was the vote yesterday so important. And on that account the vote tomorrow is important. Since the citizen again picks up on one thing: Without the AfD, there is no domestic security, and without the AfD there is no reasonable migration policy. 

Many thanks. Glück auf! 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, December 20, 2024, Constitution Defense

German Bundestag, December 20, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/208, pp. 27002-27003. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The so-called Constitution Defense in its present form does not defend democracy, it is a danger for democracy. This danger is embodied by two persons: By the former Constitution Defense chief Haldenwang, and by the Thüringen Constitution Defense president Kramer. Haldenwang stands for the reckless instrumentalization of the Constitution Defense for partisan political interests 

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): What are you saying here? My goodness!

and Kramer for an obsessive, personal crusade against the AfD. 

We recall the background of Haldenwang’s appointment. In November 2018, the Union had lost votes to the AfD; at the Bundestag election one million, and at the 2018 Hessen State legislative election 100,000. Our polling numbers were climbing ever further. 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): Hans-Georg Maaßen introduced a test proceeding                        against you!

In November 2018 we were at 16 percent and the Union fell further: About seven percentage points to 25 percent. The Merkel government therefore decided to employ the domestic secret service as a weapon against the AfD, invented the Chemnitz Hetzjagd lie, 

Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): I thought you had always been against the legalization of cannabis!

and replaced Maaßen with the compliant accomplice Haldenwang. The battle order for the true CDU party soldiers was clear: 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): For God’s sake! What stories!

to defame, belittle and ostracize the AfD and repress its election results, 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): Hans-Georg Maaßen was never a CDU member, or?

and, as you know, – apology – the brainless Haldenwang 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): We cannot accept the apology!

plainly admitted – cite: “The Constitution Defense is not alone responsible for lowering the AfD’s polling numbers.” 

“Not alone.”, he said – yet it is responsible, and indeed essentially. For his true service to the CDU, he is allowed be a CDU candidate for the Bundestag. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): The local associations present candidates!

And, as we thought it does not get worse, then came the “Apollo” exposure of the Thüringen Constitution Defense president Kramer. It rendered every democrat speechless: In 2015, the social pedagogue from the rocker scene, together with the Putinist, extremist “Night Wolves” network, took part in a wreathe-laying for the Red Army dead. The Constitution Defense knew this – and shortly thereafter made him its president. He had failed in legal studies. It is almost a trifle that he is not only personally but also professionally unsuitable and unqualified.    

As Constitution Defense president, he erected a regime of fear and intimidation. A fifth of the staff left the Thüringen Constitution Defense. The rightist and leftist extremism department leaderships are unoccupied for three years. A disciplinary proceeding is opened against him, and he has been classified as a security risk – the chief of the Constitution Defense. He openly threatened a co-worker with bodily violence. And what happened? Nothing. No denial, no resignation, no comment. A great silence, just like here now. 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): We have just not yet debated, Frau von Storch!

That the public debate is absent is the real scandal; the total failure of public control by the media, even when the state of law and democracy break. 

Benjamin Strasser (FDP): That was on the MDR and in the “Welt”! Is that also the “Lügenspresse”? 

            Leon Eckert (Greens): Do you after all read newspapers?

Like Haldenwang, Kramer also meddled without limit in the daily political fight. He insulted a fifth of the German voters as “brown dirt”. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): Not the voters, the functionaries!

He called for the AfD test case – without legal basis. In an internal e-mail, the responsible department leader declared, Herr Kramer had, cite: “knowingly left out” the responsible department. Herr Kramer's gathering of material originated with Herr Kramer himself. Not once did he explain to his officials the origin of these materials and then he made disappear a key juridical opinion in which all of this is condemned. Ladies and gentlemen, that is no substantial examination of a danger for the free, democratic basic order, that is Kramer’s personal, fanatic war against the AfD. 

Kramer and Haldenwang are symptoms of a sick system of institutionalized abuse of power. In no other Western democracy may the domestic secret service be employed against the opposition. Since what distinguishes a democracy from a dictatorship? In a democracy, 

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): …complaint can be made of the categorization!

the voters decide the fate of a party; and in a dictatorship, the secret service chief. 

Now for once quite briefly consider in which direction we are directly developing. 

            Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): In that regard, we are thinking directly                                of your speech!

If you do not use this debate today to admit that this Constitution Defense, that Haldenwang and Kramer are a danger for the free, democratic basic order, 

            Fabian Griewel (FDP): You are a danger for the free, democratic basic order?

not even now, in regards to these persons, then you are a danger for the free, democratic basic order. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

Steffen Kotré, December 18, 2024, Germany and Syria

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/206, pp. 26598-26599. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

In contrast to the Federal government, an AfD delegation five years ago traveled to Syria so as to there form a picture of the situation. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Assad!

It was quickly clear: The western sanctions destroy the country and primarily affect the people. Syria was one of the wealthiest countries of the region. There was schooling without cost, a good healthcare system, relative freedom of religion and the doors of houses were never locked. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Such rubbish!

And then came the civil war with support of the West. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Unbelievable!

The U.S.A. has diligently exploited the oil resources, and Turkey then supported the Islamists. It was a service of the Russians which weakened the Islamic State, if not having entirely defeated it. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Rubbish! That is such idiocy! Radio Moscow!

Following the logic of my preceding speaker, Herr Kuhle, it thus needed be that the “Islamic State” now should govern in Syria. 

Sara Nanni (Greens): What then brings you to the point that you tell such idiocy here? Unbelievable!

Or how should I understand it? And if he means that migration here is to be used as a weapon: It is nevertheless exactly the Federal government which has made possible this mass migration, 

Sara Nanni (Greens): The butcher Assad, whom you visited, he drove the people to flight. Already forget?

and thereby employed it as a weapon against our society; it is nothing other. Yet one thing was already then clear; namely, what German interests are: 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): It is pretty clear what your interests here are!

Reconstruction of the country and a repatriation of Syrian migrants. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Nazis raus!

The AfD already then had a time table which just now is being slowly taken over by the Federal government: 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Herr Kotré, what then are your interests?

Setting up channels of communication and a step-by-step taking up of diplomatic relations, re-opening the German embassy, lifting the sanctions which primarily affect the people, access to international payments commerce, a reconstruction plan in common with all international partners and with inclusion of the German Mitteslstand           

Sara Nanni (Greens): Your colleague from Hamburg, is she not in a WG with Assad, or how need I imagine that? The living room slowly becomes scarce!

and, lastly, remigration and re-integration of all Syrians living with us – but then in Syria; Syrians who have not integrated with us are those thereby meant. Yet Syrians who have integrated with us, and who recognize the Basic Law, who themselves provide their livelihood, are heartily welcome. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Ja, all heartily welcome. That shines from you!

Yet unfortunately that is not the largest group. And the lie, that every Syrian would be a skilled worker, nevertheless has long since collapsed. 

            Karamba Diaby (SPD): No one said that!

Why is the remigration 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): There it is again, that word!

of Syrians unwilling to integrate in the German interest; before all things, in the interest of our pensioners? 

Sara Nanni (Greens): Whom do you mean? The pensioners who are cared for by Syrian refugees, or whom do you mean?

We have approximately one million Syrians in the country. Their employment rate [Erwerbsquote] is slight. The Germans are working quasi for the Syrians. And when the Syrians have work, it is rather in the low wage sector. 

            Rasha Nasr (SPD): Like the over 5,000 doctors?

They will have to rely on social beneifts and tax money, at the latest until pensioned. The average costs of the annual sums run in a total of approximately 25 billion euros. What does this sum signify? The sum signifies that in two years the entire school grounds in Germany could be restored. 

            Jörg Nürnberger (SPD):  You yourself do not believe that!

Among the Syrians are terrorists; even Frau Merkel has admitted that. Essen, Solingen, Bad Oeynhausen – the worst perpetrators are Syrians. 

            Till Steffen (SPD): You can tell that to Putin! 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): And the biggest Nazis are German!

Among the Syrians are many who reject our free, democratic, basic order. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): Toss out the criminals from your delegation just for once! Who then sits there?

In Stuttgart and Hamburg, thousands have clearly positioned themselves with cries of “Allahu-Akbar” at Christmas markets – anti-democratic, disdaining our customs, traditions and practices, seizing power, and ultimately with a claim of forcing all others to the wall. Every one of these needs to be deported, ladies and gentlemen. 

And the German law demands remigration. The Syrians have no right to asylum. They have a subsidiary status as refugees. With the end of the civil war and the fall of Assad, their residency right has expired, since the refugee status has fallen away. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Assad, your pal!

It is thereby automatically given that they need to leave our country, 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): AfD, Assad for Deutschland!

since no EU law supports that deportations somehow be opposed. That, from humanitarian viewpoints, naturally needs to follow, that is fully clear. Germany in this regard is quite generous, and will support the reconstruction and thereby the future perspectives in Syria. That means, reconstruction, future perspectives and the return of Syrians are united with one another. 

            Till Steffen (SPD): You can take the lead and make everything nice!

The HTS, the new leadership in Syria, is an Islamist organization; a bounty of 10 million euros has been set for its leader. Yet many Syrians here in the country celebrated Assad’s fall. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Unlike you!

They thereby show that they have no problem 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time is up. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Thank God!

that now, as the Federal government names the leadership there, rebels govern.

 

Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Please sit down and be calm. All have more,                                     Herr Kotré! Really! 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time, Herr Kotré, is up.

Therefore: Remigration can save human lives. The AfD demands the repatriation and thereby represents the people’s interests           

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Stop speaking! 

Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: The speaking time is up, even if you simply speak. I can next turn off your microphone.

and those of well integrated foreigners. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, December 6, 2024, Lèse-majesté

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/204, pp. 26472-26473. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

I find that we are quite well set. When I look at the ranks of the other delegations, it appears quite good in regards to us. 

Let me begin with a pre-Christmas fairy tale. There was once a kingdom, let us call it Collapsistan, with all that pertains thereto. There was a king, let us call him Olaf the Forgetful, a prince, let us call him Robert Feeble-minded [Schwachkopf] the First, his beautiful but rather dumb consort princess Anna the Clueless, a wicked, gruesome, cunning stepmother, Marie-Agnes, and a court jester by the name of Karl the Confused. There were also dark, corrupt powers: The BlackRockers, led by Fritz the Babbler and Jens “Allow us a villa” Spahn. 

This Collapsistan sank into chaos for want of qualified leaders. It was not at all on this account chased from the castle, because the secret service, the police and the media protected it. The social and economic chaos was so great that the people were continually impoverished and enraged; whereas the rulers lived in unimaginable, lavish luxury, riotously, made horrendous debts due to deficient income, and, despite that, tossed off hundreds of thousands for castle photos in which they should appear in shining lights, for hairdressing, which in one day cost as much as what many poor people in Collapsistan did not have available in a month. They flew with luxury jets which the people needed to finance – who else? – to and fro through world history, made flights of a distance walked by other people. The state religion paid homage to the climate pharaohs for which insane gifts and sacrifices were prepared. 

The result is clear: The world laughed over this incompetent barn of corruption. And the citizens in Collapsistan were offended, insulted and mocked. Yet the rulers made no better policy, but demanded draconian penalties for critical statements. 

Ladies and gentlemen, thus far a fairy tale; nevertheless with a present reference. 

In Germany also chaos governs. The citizens are disquieted; by rustic, pointed expressions make themselves noticeable and vent their feelings. Yet those who govern here govern no better, but have critical citizens persecuted by the police by means of warnings and legal intimidations. Through the years, a denunciation and spying network has been laid over Germany like a mildew, and those who govern have created for themselves protective, special laws, like section 188 of the criminal code which is here on the table and which only particularly punishes the insulting of politicians, and indeed with two to three years custody. Three years! If a simple citizen is insulted, a penalty of merely one year threatens the perpetrator. 

In addition, the normal citizen needs to trouble himself and file a criminal complaint. For a politician, in practice, that follows automatically, as per section 194 of the criminal code. And so it can well be that, in the morning in the residence of a supposed critic of the government, as for example in mid-November of a former soldier with a handicapped child, officially stand the police who almost kicked down the door just because he shared a funny photo of Robert Habeck. 

This special law was created in 2021 as a measure against hate and agitation and rightist extremism by politicians who now profit therefrom. It reminds me personally, I need quite honestly say, of the anti-state agitation in the DDR penal code, or the statute against malicious attacks on the state and party from the year 1934. 

And precisely the politicians who created this statute now profit therefrom, and thus earn for themselves a cornucopia. Comically, start-up businesses were founded which do nothing other than warn blameless citizens, demand warning fees and then make fifty-fifty with the politicians. Something is thus just so transparent, ladies and gentlemen. Robert Habeck alone has filed 800 criminal complaints [Strafanzeigen erstattet] during his time in office, a total of a thousand criminal complaints by Baerbock, Strack-Zimmermann and as they all are called. They do not defend themselves by means of good politics, they defend themselves by means of harassing measures. Especially is the FDP at the fore, have I read. The FDP manages such warning unions, such warning start-ups, and is proud of it. 

Katharina Willkomm (FDP): No, no no! We have nothing to do with that. Those are private people.

Ladies and gentlemen, we politicians are not especially worthy of protection. Publicity is part of our jobs. We seek publicity. We wallow in publicity. We go with joy into publicity. And why should we be better protected by the criminal code than normal people? 

We politicians are not weaklings who require the special protection of the criminal law. We are no majesties, no kings, no princes. We are employees of the citizens who elect us and pay us. There thus needs be an end to that you of the cartel parties lift yourselves above the citizens, an end to the special law for politicians, an end to section 188 of the criminal code, the lèse-majesté of modern times which is nothing other than an expression of a repressive, authoritarian understanding of the state. 

Likewise, go our way! Section 188 out of the penal code! This here is only a current hour, yet the corresponding draft law is done and will be brought in next. 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): Where is it, then?

Many thanks and Merry Christmas if we should no more see one another. 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, October 18, 2024, Internet Censorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/195, pp. 25551-25552. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Friday afternoon – important themes of freedom of opinion. The Federal Network Agency [Bundesnetzagentur] comes along with a modest name, scarcely anyone knows it, is thereby meanwhile in fact the commanding censorship authority in Germany. 

            Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): That is just rubbish!

What is that for an agency? With the dissolution of the Postal Ministry, in 1998 founded as a regulatory authority for telephone and post, then also competent for gas and electric lines, later for the railway network. Meanwhile, it has almost 3,000 co-workers settled in the work area of green Economy Destruction Minister Habeck, and the chief is the Green party friend Klaus Müller who since 1990 is with the Greens, and since 2022 leads the Federal Network Agency, this censorship authority. He is now in fact the chief of the German commanding censors. He names so-called trusted flaggers. As a member of the German Language Union [Vereins Deutsche Sprache], it is clear to me: Who has something to hide, he speaks Denglish, or tries to with anglicisms, and precisely so is it here. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): As opposed to you, most people meanwhile understand that.

Trusted flagger is officially translated as trustworthy whistleblower [„vertrauenswürdige Hinweisgeber“]. At first, it sounds quite good. Yet for we citizens, they are plainly not trustworthy, but only for those rulers sensitive to criticism; wherefore in our view the better fitting translation is “digital block warden”, “thought police” or “government spy”; since that is what they are. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): You now again show that you do not manage the translations so good.

Here is driven another massive frontal assault on Article 5 of the Basic Law, the freedom of opinion, one of the most important basic rights, and core component of a living democracy. The idea of course is only illegal content shall be reported by internet spies and internet accusers equipped with exclusive access to the platforms. Yet the answer to the question, Who specifically shall that ultimately be?, leaves the worst to be feared. Who can become an internet accuser? Non-government organizations, civil society actors, religious pedagogues, trades union members, thus anyone who in fact emits the left-green thinking. 

And so no wonder that the first reporting office, in good Denglish manner, is named “REspect”, in which is sheltered one of the Islam teachers trained in the notorious and suspected Al Azhar University in Cairo. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): Herr Brandner, we’ve heard all that from Reichelt! What’s new?

The reporting office belongs to the Youth Foundation Baden Württemberg, is nursed with tax money and thus arises – we all know of it – from the left-green swamp. And this troop of, among others, religious pedagogues shall now be qualified to decide over which expressions of opinion are legitimate and which not. Actually inconceivable, or? 

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe to go too far when I say: If there had earlier been censorship authorities as presently – there were as is known some better – then would have been unthinkable showbiz greats like Thomas Gottschalk, Harald Schmidt or Rudi Carrell. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): And Helmut Schmidt!

They would no longer be allowed on the screen. We of course live in an increasingly homogenized [gleichschalteten] television- and in an increasingly oppressed digital-world, which sets up instructions and limitations, instead of open, substantial discussions. Tutored thought everywhere from the public broadcasting. 

The internet was still a bit of a free space. It becomes ever more limited. The rulers are watching. All that is unsuitable is out. Thus alternative media in Germany will be blocked, oppressed and hindered. Trusted flaggers become still more active, and will judge whether something is hatred, fake news or illegal. The worst is to be feared. 

And the worst is: There is nothing in the Basic Law in this regard. The state precisely knows it may not censor. Yet so as to attain the opposite, it privatizes the censorship. It circumvents, so to say, the Basic Law’s command, and sets up a terror of unity opinion [Einheitsmeinung], instead  of variety of opinion. We of the AfD stand for the exact opposite. We stand for variety and for freedom of opinion, and not for the unity opinion terror. 

The FDP participates. It cannot be believed what the former free, liberal party is thus doing. Herr Kubicki, who as President sits behind me, distances himself a bit from that, yet in the end he will again be for it. We, ja, know him; he is something like the Rambo of the FDP, who now and then may blink right, but then is precisely in line. That does not make the matter better. 

Alone, the Alternative für Deutschland remains as before a guarantor for democracy, for law, for freedom and especially for freedom of opinion in Germany. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): Blah, blah, blah!

We therefore demand with our motion [Drucksache 20/13364] – you’ve all read it – simply: The Federal government shall block financial grants to organizations which want to effect the deletion of user contributions which fall under the freedom of opinion. We want the Federal Cartel Office to be instructed to know, to look into: How do the arrangements for hate speech function? That would be a mission for the Federal Cartel Office. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): The Federal Cartel Office should examine the AFD?

Herr President, I come to an end; I see it blinking here. – In addition, the censorship measures on the European level need to be abolished. 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague, come to a conclusion.

And the trusted flaggers, the internet spies, may have no future in Germany. 

Many thanks. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): On what censorship is, you need to read up again.

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, July 4, 2024, Voting, Escrow and Shakespeare

German Bundestag, July 4, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23593-23594. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is, so to say, the Shakespeare of the AfD who now again has the word. A pleasant good evening, I wish you. Yet an exciting point is on the daily order for today’s debate. It is a high point, and a high point of every Berlin trip – this goes for the guests in the gallery – when one can occupy oneself at 2240 with the professional law of the registered professions – notaries, attorneys-at-law, patent attorneys and the tax consultants. Thus it crowns each day. 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): 2236!

2240, I said. It is 2236. You can still read the numbers, in contrast to me. That distinguishes you, and you are with the SPD. Congratulations that it functions! 

Thus, it is about allowing possibilities, which there were during Corona; for example, of being able to hold principal proceedings [Hauptverhandlungen] in hybrid or virtual form. Do you now continue to count, or can I continue talking? 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): I’m listening, even if it’s difficult.

Okay. Or, there is the possibility to continue mail-in voting or also to bringing about decisions by means of the post office. That, we find quite good. I say, there can be nothing against that. 

Nevertheless, we look critically upon the possibility of conducting virtual or hybrid association assemblies [Kammerversammlungen]. It is also undemocratic in regards associations if they can or must be held exclusively. As a result, we therefore reject that. In regards the conduct of the assembly, the flexibility should indeed be strengthened, and be given the possibility to lower the threshold of being able to participate; in the lived, German practice – you all know the construction of our networks – those affected may expect all possible forms of technical imponderabilities which can and will make impossible the orderly conduct of assemblies. You all know of software problems, connection and network problems, to the point of a complete break of connection. All is conceivable in Germany. Everyone knows that who more or less regularly takes part in such on-line conversations. 

It should not remain unmentioned that you – God be thanked – have turned a corner concerning the originally planned possibility to scour without cause attorneys’ escrow accounts and so be able to massively encroach upon attorney privilege [Mandatsgeheimnis]. 

            Otto Fricke (FDP): Collective accounts, Herr colleague! 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): Otto, he’s not familiar with that!

It would have been a systemic break. There would have been considerably more administrative expense. It’s therefore nice that you in the last meters have managed to eliminate that from the law. 

All in all: You now previously from here have heard a comprehensive, Shakespearean weighing of the pros and cons of this law. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): I believe you have never read Shakespeare.

We have wrestled with it, we have debated, and as a result come to the view: We unfortunately cannot vote in favor. That will not prevent this law, it also should not; we will with absolute vigor abstain. 

I thus for the AfD delegation dispatch or release, on a nice evening, you and the guests above in the gallery into the Berlin nightlife. 

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]

Fabian Jacobi, July 4, 2024, The German Language

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23455-23456. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With associations, it is so a matter: What in regards a new item of business comes to one spontaneously, often appears accidental and then proves to be of little help. In the case put forward, my thoughts certainly turn back more often in further course to the matter which this draft law for me initially called to mind. The famous sociologist and economist Max Weber expressed it in his entry speech at the University of Freiberg in the year 1895, and he said: 

“Big businesses which are only to be maintained at the cost of German nationality, from the standpoint of the nation are worthy of perishing…”

Now, the circumstance to which this matter referred – it was about the collapse of the noble estates in the Prussian agrarian areas – has well nigh sunk into the fogs of history. And the verbal characteristic of Weber’s speech for us today has become foreign. Yet it would be decadent arrogance to believe on that account alone we could easily do without the insights and thoughts of earlier generations. 

You, ladies and gentlemen, want by means of the law which you today are deciding “to strengthen Germany as a venue of justice [Justizstandort Deutschland]” The expression reveals the authors’ world view. It is a view which we do not share. 

The German state is no business firm which has to compete for a share of the market. The German state is, if so desired, the worldly form [weltliche Gestalt] of the German nation the continuation of which it has to serve. To this belongs that the language of this Republic is and remains the German language. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!

You want to strengthen the justice venue in which German courts further conduct proceedings in the English language, and no longer pronounce sentence in the name of the people in the language of the people. 

This shall initially apply only for a specific category of judicial procedures. It would  nevertheless be naïve to suppose the matter will thereby rest. The FDP, the minister of which is responsible for the law, demands introducing quite generally the English language as an official language of the German state. We recognize here the first step of a classic salami tactic: Once the salami begins to be cut, it is only a question of time until it is completely consumed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we experience for long already the downfall of our language. The loss of its earlier importance beyond our borders needs not be mourned; yet it might be explained as a consequence of two destructive world wars. Meanwhile long since also occurs the decline in its own land. 

Martin Plum (CDU/CSU): In the Legal Affairs Committee, also with you!

Ever more often it happens that in businesses the staff are urged to communicate with one another not in German but in English. Universities hold teaching events in the English language, even if all participants are native German speakers or are fluent in German. 

Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): You as a member speak English in committee!

And now also shall a core area of our state, the justice, begin the process of the suppression of our language. If we open this door a crack, so will it tomorrow be completely pushed open. It should remain closed. This applies all the more as the implications disturb not only the national but also the democratic character of our polity. 

In the pre-democratic ages, the feudal ruling class spoke to one another in French, despised the German language as a language of farmers and domestics. This situation was overcome by the bürgerlichen and democratic revolution of the 19^th Century. The German national state which grew out of that revolution would be entirely perverted; in the 21^st Century, it wanted to set about abetting a revival of such a social division [Der deutsche Nationalstaat, der aus jener Revolution erwuchs, würde gänzlich pervertiert, wollte er sich im 21. Jahrhundert daranmachen, einem Wiederaufleben solcher gesellschaftlicher Spaltung Vorschub zu leisten]. I began this speech with a citation, and with a citation I also close: 

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): The main thing, to end! 

“We hope that what always distinguishes and will distinguish the nation from other nations…our beautiful language, will not become dry and common, but will renew its nobility, and with it all that finds its expression in words. If that not be done, what would all recovered great power and seeming power then help us?”

Golo Mann wrote that as a closing sentence of his Deutschen Geschichte. And if my speech will surely have no influence on today’s vote, may it still be taken to heart by one or another for his future work in this house. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, May 16, 2024, Petr Bystron and EU Election

AfD Kompakt, May 16, 2024. 

The lifting of the immunity and the search of the office and private space of Petr Bystron are a serious proceeding. So far, no evidence has been presented for the accusations raised for weeks against Herr Bystron. The AfD delegation therefore hopes for a speedy conclusion of the investigations so that the suspicion does not arise that here officials and instructed state prosecutors are attempting to influence the European election campaign. 

 

[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]

Peter Boehringer, March 21, 2024, Debt Brake

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/160, pp. 20611-20612. 

Frau President. 

For the umpteenth time the Linke wants to abolish the debt brake, this time disguised as a “reform”. Meant, however, is the cold abolition; Herr Görke was certainly at least honest. Since 2020, we clearly have a great coalition of all old parties for a boundless making of debt. In addition, we know that the tax money will not be sufficient for the government even in 2025. And the SPD’s speaker has confirmed that a great left-green debt coalition thoroughly sympathizes with this “reform”, or with the abolition idea. 

What does the Linke now concretely propose? In the future, a “transition phase” of precisely one year shall increase the possible excess indebtedness, which diametrically contradicts what the Federal Constitutional Court permitted just last November: Very clearly, a setting aside of the debt brake only for the year of a catastrophe itself. Any time exceeding a year was explicitly forbidden by the Federal Constitutional Court. That does not interest the leftist writers of the motion. 

In the motion’s second demand, the single hard guideline of Article 115, namely the structural deficit limit of 0.35 percent of GDP, shall be annulled. That however would be no “reform” of the debt brake, but a material alteration of the Basic Law’s wording, which may not proceed with a simple motion but only with a law to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority. The motion is thus also badly written. 

With the third demand, the besides already highly mathematical finding procedure for the debt brake’s business cycle component shall be still further complicated. Who for once takes a rudimentary look at the formulation [Formelwelt], and the arbitrary scope of valuation which will be used for this calculation, knows that a self-indebted government chronically short of money can thereby vastly exceed the permitted limit of indebtedness – even today. The aim of the Linke, to receive still “greater fiscal scope”, as it is in the motion, is thus absurd, since this scope today already is enormous. 

Clearly, the terms in Article 115 of the Basic Law are very spongy. There are therein named arbitrary expectations without clear deduction criteria, free of parameters as a result of unclear entities, certain cyclical norms, gaps in production, estimates of potential and cyclical settlement procedures, all without binding definitions. And the number in the end will determined by technocratic procedures and legal decrees. 

Dear Linke, you should here just simply love the already existing planned economy, instead of wanting to reform it. Precisely that of course already is your vulgarized Keynesian theoretical model of a world. Simply enjoy it as long as you are still permitted to sit here and play with a national economy. 

Many thanks. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Nothing missed there!

 

[trans: tem]

 

Stephan Brandner, February 22, 2024, Corrupt Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/154, pp. 19757-19758. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr Fechner, that was way past the themes on which you have spoken here. Yet you have made a gift to us of the seven minutes – a very good thing! The people outside there nevertheless need to know: It is all the same what you fill out in your order of business, you in any case do not restrain yourself when it is at the expense of the AfD. Therefore: Considerable hypocrisy, I need say to you! 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): Why then do you continually lose? Why do you continually lose before the Constitutional Court? 

As to the matter itself, – you have regrettably missed the theme; to the back of the class, Herr Fechner! – it is about old parties, crony business, nepotism, family gangs. We have already been acquainted in this legislative period with the Graichen clan in a Green ministry. Suddenly, a scandal in the FDP Transportation Ministry: There, a section leader for hydrogen has provided his relations and acquaintances with millions; 

            Tina Rudolph (SPD): Greetings to Azerbaijian!

hence, a quick stop of hydrogen projects at the Transportation Ministry. 

All of this is however no exception, ladies and gentlemen. We have the Porsche-mails, of which Herr Wissing apparently also has not heard. We have Herr Lindner and the BB Bank. All of which is very dubious. We have the Kahrs connections through which colleague Kahrs has supplied his Sozikumpel in Hamburg. We do not exactly know what’s with the Benko clan and the Federal government. We have Löbel, Tandler, Sauter, Nüsslein, CDU and CSU captains 

            Ruppert Stüwe (SPD): Yet you are the delegation with the most criminals!

all up to the collar in a corruption and donations swamp. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): So, now on the code of conduct! On the theme!

And you present yourself here in all seriousness and act as if you want to change anything for the better! 

Ladies and gentlemen out there, you must know, regardless whether mask deals, Habeck clans, Benko, Gabriel, Lindner, Tandler, Löbel, or how they all are called, thus regardless whether SPD, FDP, Greens, CDU or CSU, 

            Tina Rudolph (SPD): Nicely excluding your own corruption scandals!

all of you – and this I say ever again from here – have looted the state, without limit. You know no boundaries so as to fill your pockets at the expense of the taxpayers out there. Your daily allowances should be enough. You have not been appointed for lobbying. Despite this, you do not trouble yourselves with what is going through the people’s minds out there, ladies and gentlemen. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): That is unparliamentary!

Apropos lobby contacts: Is Frau Agnes Strack-Rheinmetall here? 

            Ingo Bodtke (FDP): That is an impudence!

She likely continues to lobby. 

You cannot and do not want to halt the lobbying because all of you profit therefrom. Thus the lobby register law is nothing but a dead bird. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): “Dead bird”! There you have long reflected!

It contains no legislative, no executive footprint, as we want, so can be verified: Where has someone somehow exercised an influence on legislation? That, all of you do not want. Representatives of interests can decline the statements on their financing. Lobbyists need not reveal for which projects and statutory purposes they are working. There are so many exceptions that the exceptions are the rule, ladies and gentlemen. 

Today, it is only about minimal alterations. You thereby want to trim that you simply slept through the original legislative process. 

            Anke Henning (SPD): How can one talk so much rubbish?

You have headlong brought into this parliament a few hours before the final vote motions to amend which you yourselves do not understand. We therefore here today need to speak in plenary session on redactive alterations. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): That is just idiocy! Dumb thing! We do nothing in the lobby register! Nothing is changed in the lobby register!

We could have spared ourselves all of this. Had you done reasonable legislative work, as we will do it when we shortly are in the government, we would have been able to completely spare ourselves this debate point. 

Johannes Fechner (SPD): You certainly have not read it, Herr Brandner! You do not grasp the simplest points! 

Tina Rudolph (SPD): We can spare ourselves this entire democracy if you are in the government!

You have once again exposed yourselves. It is good that this could again be expressed here; I know not how long that still goes. 

Many thanks. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Ja, tschüs! 

 

[trans: tem]