Kerstin Brinker, July 2, 2026, Housing in Berlin

Berlin Abgeordnetenhaus, Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 9106-9108.

Oh, man, that was class warfare rhetoric par excellence - without an economic 
understanding of the matter.

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear Berliners.

Who works in Berlin, provides for a family, cares for relatives, or is every day 
concerned for that our city functions, needs naturally to be able to live here. 
That is a quite simple standard, and by which the Berlin housing and building 
policy needs to be measured.

Many Berliners however unfortunately experience the opposite. They find no 
suitable housing when their lives are changed. The Berlin housing market is 
quasi frozen. Who has an affordable dwelling remains housed there, even 
if it is no longer suitable. Who urgently requires a new dwelling finds none
which he can afford. That is the result of years and decades of false course 
corrections in the housing and building policy. Responsible are all those who 
in the last 30 years have sat here in the government, namely those who now 
so loudly brag and snort they knew entirely better. Nein! You are all 
responsible for this shortcoming, from left to black all. Just one little 
indication: Under red-red-green, the rent in Berlin doubled. Na, oh Wunder, 
how did such happen? - Through your senseless, fully incompetent economic 
Politik. 

Berlin requires not only corrections in individual laws or terms, Berlin
requires a change, primarily in regards costs and guidelines, and we 
require a rational investments climate. Therefore, these leftist 
expropriation debates need finally be off the table. Expropriation creates
no housing, expropriation however stands for more debts, for complicated
and expensive [aufwendige] processes, and an inflated new state economy. 
Honored Linke, Greens and SPD! Name me one country in which communist 
redistribution, thus the abolition of private property, lead to more prosperity
for all. You cannot do it. 

It plainly does not, because life does not work thus. Communism - what 
you want - leads to a scarcity economy, and straight to a shortage of housing. 
All, up to a small political caste to which you all openly want to belong, are
in the end in communism similarly poor. Should that be our future model of
living? Ours does not agree. 

Who wants to abolish property profanes the basic ideas of the sozial market 
economy, and needs not wonder about absent investments. Who wants more 
housing needs to make construction possible. That begins with reliable terms
and clear competences. Construction planning and approvals are not allowed 
to last longer than three years and buildings, before all, need to become less 
costly. For that, the construction guidelines need to be considerably reduced, 
and over-drawn additional obligations be dismantled. The law for simple 
construction is certainly a beginning, but it does not suffice by far. Every new 
obligation in the end makes the rents more expensive. Every unneeded
prescription makes new projects more difficult, and each regulation makes 
projects more difficult. Who wants affordable housing must thus speak 
openly of the real costs, namely those originating from the state.
The state's quota in regards construction - this, I've never heard here - 
is meanwhile at, believe it or not, 37 percent. For 100 euros of 
investments in construction, the state's quota costs 37 euros. The state is 
the costs driver. With taxes, levies, bureaucratic hindrances, the state, 
the lawgiver, thus you, makes more expensive the construction for us all. 
If this cost factor were cancelled, then rental costs in new construction
could be no more at 20 euros but at about 14 euros net per square meter. 
Here you see what a leverage effect this has. This applies for all things 
regarding the disastrous added energy requirements. Climate policy 
symbolism is not allowed to further increase the expense of housing 
construction. What costs much and brings scarcely anything may not as a 
rule be accepted. 

The private housing business which is here so diabolized presents the 
largest part of the Berlin rental housing market. Those are the small and 
mid-sized landlords. Who incessantly frightens them off, diminishes the 
supply of housing, and who diminishes the supply of housing intensifies 
the housing emergency. Thus finally stop measuring all landlords 
by one measure. Black sheep are everywhere, and need to be and will be 
held to account. Yet surely the small, private landlords suffer even now 
under the prevailing regulations. 

Therefore we are also opposed to the rent registry. You will not manage
the black sheep with a registry, they always find the gaps. The honest 
landlord, he is always the dummy. That cannot still be! Ever more small 
landlords want to take leave from the housing market and sell. Three times 
they may consult with those to whom they then sell. - They sell to the large 
investors, to the internationals, to the funds, to the insurers. 

Tobias Schulze (Linke): You must find that good!

Do you notice something? You drive the Berlin housing market with your 
regulations into a complete dead end. You always achieve exactly the 
opposite of what you actually want to achieve. That for once finally needs 
to be realized, Herrgott noch mal!

Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD): Bravo!

What instead needs to happen? - In regards the housing construction 
promotion, Berlin requires a clear standard. Rent allowances and 
supplements housing money for WBS Berechtige [housing entitlement
certificates] can of course work faster than a promotion of individual 
objects. The sozial housing needs to succeed with those for whom it was 
conceived. False verifications need to stop. Sub-leasing of sozial housing
is not allowed to become a business model. Cooperatives need to be 
more strongly supported, and Berlin needs to make possible long-term 
property formation. Housing ownership protects against old age poverty, 
and that is no secret.

Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD): Right!

Housing ownership protects against dispossession and against dependency 
on the rental market.

Tobias Schulze (Linke): When the rents are too 
expensive, the people should stop buying, neh?

Here we see a top priority completely neglected for decades. A city 
which gives up on ownership for normal employees, takes from Berliners
opportunities for security and quality of life. 

Tobias Schulze (Linke): The market regulates that, 
Frau Brinker!

I say what you here can learn for once: In Berlin, the housing 
ownership quota is around 14 percent. Have you taken a peek at the other
major European cities?

Tobias Schulze (Linke): The market regulates that!

- Ja, wunderbar! - Paris: 30 percent, London: 50 percent, Budapest, Warsaw
even a 80 to 90 percent ownership quota! They do not have such a problematic
situation like Berlin, because we have never taken care to promote that 
the normal employees be in a position to provide themselves with housing
ownership. Precisely that is the problem.

The Berliners feel the consequences of the false housing construction policy
every day. Families find no larger dwelling, seniors find no smaller housing, 
young people do not leave the parents' house. Many businesses which keep
Berlin running can scarcely afford this city. The state-owned firms are here 
for that. The state-owned housing stock is, despite 400,000 units, a scarce 
public good which requires a fair distribution.

On that account, we are for that we allocate our state-owned housing to the 
Berliners. The state-owned undertakings, in 2024, rented on average at 8.81
euros Nettokalt [per square meter, without heat], the free supply price was 
around 14.50 euros. Thus who receives state-owned housing obtains a real 
opportunity to be able to live and remain in Berlin. Thus precisely is this 
allotment question of public housing no peripheral matter, but a central 
component of construction policy justice. 

To the point, we want and we require a transparent allotment model of 
state-owned housing by way of a reasonable point system, as is possible 
and was implemented in other cities. It considers the local connection, key 
and scarce occupations like tradesmen, nurses, police officers, firemen, 
honorary officials. In any case shall be considered as well additional 
sozial criteria: Handicap, old age mobility, cramped living conditions of 
families, income from the housing entitlement certificates. These are all 
people who require the sozial housing of the state-owned firms. Decisive
is thus: Who here lives, works, overtakes responsibility, he shall receive a 
publicly promoted dwelling. That would be just because it considers the 
roots and the Berliners who over decades finance the housing construction
with their taxes and duties. 

Ario Ebrahimpour Mirzaie (Greens): Housing space 
for white Germans. You want that!

It is a sozial point system because it includes the actual need. It is practical
because it creates a standard which all citizens can understand and examine. 
The standard for us is simple. 

Ario Ebrahimpour Mirzaie (Greens):  Racism is your 
standard!

Who keeps Berlin in the running needs to be able to live in Berlin.
I am grateful for your attention.

Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD):  Bravo!

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, August 12, 2026, AfD Excluded from Local Elections

EU Parliament, August 12, 2026.

Written Question E-003265/2026.

Following the exclusion of several AfD members from local elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia, a large number of AfD candidates have now been prevented from running in the local elections on 13 September 2026 by the electoral committees in Lower Saxony. The candidates in question are Member of the Lower House of the German Parliament Martin Sichert (Friesland council election), Member of the State Parliament Thorsten Moriße (Wilhelmshaven mayoral election), Justin Vogel (Herzberg am Harz mayoral election) and Reinhild Goes (Nörten-Hardenberg mayoral election). What’s different about the situation in Lower Saxony is that the decision has been made on the basis of the new local election law adopted in April 2026 by the SPD–Green state government, which provides that, in cases of doubt regarding loyalty to the constitution, recommendations from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the Ministry of the Interior may be taken into account – although the AfD has not been banned.

1. Does the Commission consider the exclusion of democratically elected party representatives from local elections solely based on the fact that they are part of the AfD to be a possible violation of fundamental democratic principles of the EU?

2. What does it make of this case, considering that it effectively constitutes an exclusion of a party through the back door, when such a decision should be the sole responsibility of the Federal Constitutional Court?

3. In view of the above, will it consider initiating a procedure under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) against Germany?

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

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

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

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

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

Guido Kosmehl (FDP): Oh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, July 8, 2026, Germany and the U.S.A.

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/88, pp. 10804-10805.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

We want an alliance with the U.S.A. That is due to national interests 
and to the common cultural roots, but not to the mission of liberating 
mankind from all evils of this world. 

There are two viewpoints on the 250 year U.S. history. The Transatlantiker 
transfigure [verklären] it, and the anti-Americans diabolize it. Both are 
wrong. The history of the U.S.A. is like that of every great nation full of 
light and shadow. We need not transfigure the U.S.A. so as to be allied 
with them.

Our relation to the U.S.A. and to Russia will always be other than that to 
China, India, Iran or to the Arab states, because we are branches of a 
European stock, 

Metin Hakverdi (SPD): “Branches of a European stock”!

because we have the same Christian root, and naturally because 50 million
Americans have German roots. And we are proud of that, what Germans have 
achieved by construction of the New World. It could be said: Those were
American-speaking Germans; it’s true all around. The Steuben parade in New 
York or the Carl-Schurz-Straße in Spandau recall that. 

The migrant German revolutionaries of 1848/49 played just so a decisive role
in the founding of the Republicans as in the fight against the slavery. Thus 
my proposal to our leftist post-colonialists: A memorial in Friedrichshain-
Kreuzberg for the white German men in the American Civil War. If anyone
fought against the slavery, then it was them. 

250 years of U.S. history also stand for the myth of an immigration society 
with open borders in which every unfortunate from all the world was 
accepted. Aristide Zolberg in his book “A Nation by Design” has done away 
with this myth. The Americans have knowingly selected who they have 
wanted as immigrants and who not. Thus 19th Century European immigration 
was promoted and the Chinese limited, otherwise the U.S.A. today would be 
Chinese. Donald Trump’s immigration policy is thus no break with the 
American tradition; but the conscious control of the immigration over 250 
years is the basis for the U.S. model of success. 

In the last 250 years, there was always two Americas. The America of the 
progressive elite and that of the culturally conservative majority – and so it
is also with us. The progressive elites on this and that side of the Atlantic believe
that we have a global mission to free the world from all evils, that we are 
responsible for the fate of every citizen on earth as for our own citizens, or still 
more, and that our national interests are identical with the interests of all 
humanity. 

In the U.S.A., this wrong way lead to a long series of disastrous military 
interventions as in Iraq or Afghanistan, and in Germany to a self-destructive
refugee and climate policy.

The MAGA movement and the AfD both stand for the same political goals:
The end of this errant global mission and the return to the interests of an 
entirely normal nation. The order of our day enjoins: Solve the problems of 
Detroit and Gelsenkirchen instead of those of the Ukraine and of Afghanistan. 

And I want to close with a sentence of U.S. founding father Thomas Jefferson
which is today as valid as then, and unfortunately very current. Where the 
government fears the people, freedom prevails. Where the people fear the 
government, tyranny prevails. 

Many thanks. 

[trans: tem]

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

Sachsen-Anhalt Landtag, Stenografischer Bericht 8/115, pp. 66-69.

Many thanks, Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The citizens in this country have the nose full of broken promises. They have the 
nose full of that. After the election will be continually done precisely the opposite
of what was previously announced. On that account, we hold this debate to be 
extremely important: Because we as AfD want to re-create finally trust in 
political institutions. 

Yet previously, as you know of me – Excuse me, please: You know that we are 
also able to differentiate; for example, the Greens and the Linke do it somewhat 
differently, they are honest. They bluntly state quite freely to the citizens what a 
lunatic Politik they want to make in this country. They quite freely state that they
are for a Verbotspolitik, 

Sebastian Striegel (Greens): Nein!

that they want to to further continue the Politik of open borders,

Olaf Meister (Greens): Those are lies!

that they are for gender quotas. All of this rubbish, you know that. And there 
are citizens who quite knowingly vote for it; das ist in Ordnung, das ist 
Demokratie.

The CDU however does it perfidiously. The CDU in an election campaign
does the exact opposite of what they later do in government responsibility.

Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): What?

That, we no longer want. On that account, we say quite clearly: We as AfD
want to again look forward. We actually do not want to suddenly occupy
ourselves with the CDU. We have entirely other concerns.

You find that funny. Yet that is the correct beginning, and we thereby again
know that we’ve touched a sore point, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, 
and we will continue to do that.

And because we have started with a little humor is the title of our current debate 
exactly right: “24 Years CDU Government, 24 Years Broken Promises, 24 Years 
Leftist Course”. That is exactly the big problem in back. It’s about this indirect 
leftist course in this society which is actually the exact opposite from that which 
the citizens actually wanted.

Juliane Kleemann (SPD): Who then are the citizens? I simply 
don’t know which general term you always use, Herr Siegmund!
That is always an assertion! The citizens! The people here in this
room are also “the citizens”!

Frau Kleemann, just as in the west as in the east, the people vote majority 
conservative. They however receive a leftist-green Politik under the covering
and under the leadership of the CDU. Where that leads is seen, for example, 
in Berlin quite especially; there, we have a CDU Bürgermeister. And what were 
his first actions in office? A queer commissioner for every, single district, the 
setting aside of the deportations, expropriation fantasies. That is the present 
course of the CDU: A left-green Politik under the cover of the black cloak. 

You do that not only in Berlin, you do that in Sachsen-Anhalt. We need to 
protect this State from that, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. So as to 
to undermine the whole, let us begin with a fact check. In the year 2021 was the 
last Landtag election. You all will recall even then the CDU had a great concern 
about a strong AfD, and on that account accepted concrete points in its 
election program. 

Just for once I ask myself why you at all write an election program. For once 

write a program with the title “Things Which We in the Last 
Government Did Not Implement”. That would be honest. Where do you go
in the running with an election program when you do exactly the opposite?
Therein we found the concrete points. I simply looked inside. In the year 2021, 
they were still concrete in the election program. You wrote: You wanted 
a fixed upper limit in the area of migration. 

Anne Marie Keding (CDU): We have still! All of it traces back! 
That clearly traces back!

You wanted consistent deportations. In the program, you were even still of 
the opinion that asylum is not immigration, and that following the lapse of 
the reason for protection the exit journey needs be in line. After the election, 
the CDU wanted to know nothing more of it. You were compromise-ready –
thus you named it – for your coalition partners SPD and FDP who both weakened
exactly this point in their election programs.  In the coalition contract, it is 
no longer once stated that there shall be an upper limit. There was no more talk
of that. You also no longer distinguish between the distinct residency bases. Nein, 
the CDU spoke of – I cite: That to the refugee people needs be explained their 
rights. That then landed in the coalition contract.

In the scope of the election campaign I quite precisely recall all those 
talkshows in which you said that our citizenship needs to be protected, that
it must not be granted in an inflated way. In the coalition contract suddenly
it was stated – I cite: “Naturalizations we consider as signs of a successful 
integration.” “Therefore we strive for naturalizations. ”

Daniel Rausch (AfD): People, people!

The CDU underwrote that, thus precisely the opposite of what they promised 
in the election campaign. 

And you have self-evidently stabbed in the back the farmers. In the election 
program is stated: You wanted moderation and restraint. You are against
sealing acreage, against the mirrorization [Verspargelung; i.e., solar panels].
You wanted an energy supply capable of the base load. And what was then 
in the coalition contract? The climate goals need be unconditionally achieved. 
You have further made free the way for still more windmills and now even in 
the forests. For all of this, the CDU has to answer. You sold and betrayed the 
farmers, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. However, not only did the CDU 
underwrite the coalition contract, one person also underwrote it: Dr. Rainer
Haselhoff, you all most likely remember. 

Minister-president Sven Schulze: That’s simply not right!

Yes, and you, too!

Minister-president Sven Schulze: I’ve underwritten that!

Ach, you have underwritten that? Still better! Wunderbar! Still better! Then let 
us come – 

Ulrich Thomas (CDU): So much to fact check!

Okay, I come to you Herr Schulze. – How, please?

Minister-president Sven Schulze: You need first for once read
it before you speak on it here!

Ulrich Thomas (CDU): So much to fact check!

We note it; Herr Schulze can simply not expect it. – Herr Schulze, I come now 
to you. 

Minister-president Sven Schulze: I don’t get it! Fact check!

You are in principle the personification of broken election promises, Herr Schulze.

[trans: tem]

Nicole Höchst, June 25, 2026, Organ Donation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/86, p. 10526.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

We as legislators in very difficult times go the way in common of preserving mankind 
with its God-given dignity, and to so support it in a transformational era that 
this becomes part of our being as free and responsible creatures, and 
similarly as humble co-creators in a pre-ordained order. 

Our dignity rests especially on the natural law, the Christian social teaching 
and humanist philosophy. We thus need continue to resolve the central
question: What is allowed to man? Not: What can he do? Only so does he
remain a man in a godly and natural order.

Certainly in the debate on organ donation this becomes clear. The Catholic 
Church sees the organ donation as a possible act of love of neighbor, yet 
only by voluntary, informed consent and utmost certainty upon the 
donor’s death. The body is not allowed to become disposable matter. 

The presumed consent [Widerspruchlösimg] in the present discussion, on 
the contrary, assumes an acceptance where none is actively presented and 
where possible none, actively and self-determined, can or wants to be given.  
It takes from the people in the acute situation the possibility themselves or 
through relatives to decide. It ignores the religious reservations of many 
Christians, Moslems and orthodox Jews who do not generally recognize brain 
death as complete death and emphasize the integrity of the body. And it
stands in contradiction to the dignity of the Basic Law, and to 
philosophical anthropology.

The presumed consent in regards organ donation potentially treats the body 
as a disposable resource. Man however is not a resource for social 
purposes, even if it is for saving the life of another. One’s own inherent
dignity does not end with death. Technical feasibility and commerce are 
not allowed to be able to set aside ethical limits. Trans-humanism and the 
de-coupling of humanity from the Creator are already far advanced. 
Humanity readies itself to set the natural order on its head. 

In the Basic Law it is stated: “The dignity of men is inviolable.” Dignity
however follows from that the man is a subject of this law, not an object 
of planning and disposal. The body of the individual is not property of the 
state, is not property of society or of an expectation, but an expression of 
the personal existence. A Politik which makes the body disposable without 
expressed, informed consent violates the primacy of the person before the 
collective.

Valued colleagues, there is no right to the organs of other persons. There 
is no obligation for compassion. There is a right to not decide. Let us thus
remain with the decision process which authentic free will and clarification
strengthen. Let us confirm men as free and responsible beings. These 
considerations unite Christian creation theology, the reason of natural law, 
humanist freedom and steadfast loyalty to the Basic Law. 

I thank from the heart all donors who voluntarily and out of conviction 
verify the compassion of the organ donation. Many hearty thanks. You are 
heroes. We need more.

Many thanks. 

[trans: tem] 

Alice Weidel, July 9, 2026, Industry, Budget, Free Speech

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10882-10883.

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

The Chancellor is there; I can see him back there.

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): He shuns the picture in common!

Herr Merz, since you are in office, with narrow-minded assurance you do 
the opposite of what you have promised and what would be right for this
country. 

Michael Kellner (Greens): “Narrow-minded assurance”, yet you 
know of what you speak, or?

You wanted to speak on the situation. You have not done it; for the situation
in this country is disastrous. Month by month, 15,000 industrial workplaces 
fall away. The auto industry is in a downfall. The de-industrialization turns 
into mass flight. Even Volkswagen staggers. 100,000 workplaces are on the 
verge. Suppliers and service providers fall like dominoes. Not a week without 
bad news. The German Mittelstand expends reserves. The insolvency tsunami 
expels prosperity and good jobs from Germany. Every 20 minutes a German 
firm goes bankrupt. The productive future investments have fallen to the null 
point. Germany has declined in international competition.

The ideological costs of your Politik and the Politik of your predecessors 
burden the German economy and all Germans and are no longer to be borne. 
At 6 trillion – 6,000 billion – euros estimates the economist Bernd 
Raffelhüschen the accumulated costs of the German migration policy. So 
expensive again becomes the failed energy transition if it is then executed to 
the bitter end, and nothing other than an industrial desert is left behind in 
Germany.

And the citizens and the taxpayers? They grow poor. They feel the downfall 
every day in their own pocketbook. The sozial spending explodes. It rises faster 
than the pay. Who works and pays taxes, he is the dummy torn between rising 
tax and duties costs, escalating costs for energy, housing, cost of living, and 
shrinking real incomes which everywhere do not suffice for a living. Out of 
such a situation there is only one exit: To lower the state expenditures, to 
eliminate all that is superfluous from the budget, to end the ideological wrong 
way, to leave in the citizens’ pocket more of the hard earned money, and to 
immediately liberate the economy from bureaucratic and fiscal restraints and 
immediately end the artificial increased expense and scarcity of energy. That 
is precisely what you promised the citizens before the election. You do the 
opposite. 

Instead, you deride the taxpayer with an anti-reform package which lifts the 
exploitation to the next stage. You preen yourself with a fake tax reform. You
do not relieve the taxpayer, you further burden him. You increase and discover
new taxes on tobacco, plastic, alcohol, sugar and crypto investments. You cut 
the parents money, burden families, increase the sozial contributions. Under the 
title “rich tax”, a pure tax of envy, you draw money from the pocket of the 
Mittelstand. You load the accounting for the expenditures. You one-sidedly
seek out the taxpayers and contribution payers and in addition insult them – 
they should work more and longer, not so many sick days – as complainers who 
should step aside, if you please. 

So that citizens and journalists put fewer inconvenient questions, you tighten  
the freedom of information law. You give more competences to the secret 
services and to the Constitution Protection. Ja, the fleecing and the suppression 
of the citizens and of the opposition need to conclusively proceed with the state
repression. 

And that fits that today your Ursula von der Leyen of the CDU in the EU 
Parliament wants again to have by expedited motion a vote on the total control
of the citizens, chat control, after this was rejected umpteen times. Vote until it
passes! By the total control in autos, in the chats, you thus want to control the 
citizens, while Ursula von der Leyen has deleted her Pfizer deals by SMS.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): It’s about sexual abuse of children!

I say to you one thing: To you applies the saying “All men are equal, many are 
more equal”. And that exactly is your CDU Politik summed up. 

You put forward a draft budget and a finance plan which explode all limits 
of  the spending frenzy and debt-making. You thereby further finance the eco-
socialist climate protection ideology of which the rest of the world for long 
wants to know nothing more. You continue to squander billions and billions 
of  euros for useless development aid which makes BlackRock still richer and 
nourishes some profiteers and lobbyists. With your Politik, you serve not 
Germany, but perhaps secure for yourself a high paid occupation by 
connection after you have left behind nothing other than scorched earth.
You pump additional untold sums into the NGO swamp and into the migration
industry, even when its favorites sink into a morass of corruption and infidelity; 
or, like the flight assistant of the murderer of six in Stade – from the SPD – are 
entangled in criminal machinations. 

You stir up Kriegsangst, and mis-use this as a license so as to, under the pretext
 of security expenditures, let fall the last inhibitions in regards debt-making. You
drive the arms spending to astronomical heights, without that thereby something
would be won for Germany’s security. Instead, you construct a state-controlled
and -financed armaments economy as a replacement for the real industry directed 
to fundamentals – an armaments industry the products of which you donate to 
the Ukraine. 

Year by year, you want to make more than 200 billion euros in debts; that is 
one trillion euros until 2030. In the next year alone, we pay interest in the sum 
of 40 billion euros, this year 32 billion euros. This then accumulates until 2030. 
I know, you laugh, you find that funny. 

Heidi Reichinnek (Linke): We don’t laugh. We suffer. 

To 2030, we have an interest service of 80 billion euros. – Listen to yourselves, 
for you cannot deal with numbers, especially you of the SPD. You can’t do it. –
You thereby risk losing Germany’s top rating in the capital markets. Your 
financial policy drives Germany directly into state bankruptcy, and the owners, 
the citizens with homes and mortgages, into ruin. Who profits? Perhaps BlackRock
or international investors can purchase at the lowest prices the German real estate 
in the year 2029 or 2030 at the latest. There again is closed the circle for this 
Chancellor Merz.

You leave behind a heap of rubble for those who come after you. A heap of 
rubble! I can say one thing to you: We will, despite this, accept the challenge and 
do the necessary when the voters give us the mandate. 

Dirk Weise (SPD): That, they will not do!

And when everything will have been knocked kaputt by you, we will liberate the 
state budget, the sozial system and the taxpayer from unnecessary and harmful 
spending and subventions. We will cut back the rampant Staatsapparat, halt 
the mass migration into the sozial system and push the consistent deportation 
of illegals and criminals. And we will abolish the individual right to asylum! We 
will end the ideological energy transition and lower the oppressive energy costs 
and tax burden. We are ready to overtake responsibility for Germany. Finally 
make free the way for a new government!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Boring!

That is the one service which you can still do for this country, Herr Merz!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Boring! Always the same!

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, May 19, 2026, EU Defense and the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg,  P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0383-0000).

Frau President.

The United States is withdrawing troops which in the course of the Ukraine crisis it had moved to Europe. That was politically announced and thus foreseeable.

Who is now concerned the U.S.A. would quite suddenly leave Europe in the lurch, can calm down, turning to the other page: Great powers tend to have their vassals tremble occasionally. Yet the U.S.A. will not choose to to give up its bridgehead to Eurasia. The true enemy of Europe is not the Russian Federation but the Islamic totalitarianism. It threatens the open societies not only from without but also from within – supported by the leftist-green zealots of this parliament. 

Thus the actual question is not whether America remains. The question is whether Europe will awake. Who preaches strategic autonomy may not at the same time order his security policy maturity in Washington [darf nicht zugleich seine sicherheitspolitische Mündigkeit in Washington bestellen]. It does not go well together to emancipate oneself rhetorically from the U.S.A., yet to practically always purchase new weapons from it. 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, May 19, 2026, EU Veto Right

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0150-0000).

Mr. President, history teaches us something important: political systems tend to become more bureaucratic when confidence in their political leadership dwindles. Once democratic trust declines, institutions attempt to compensate through procedures, frameworks and mechanisms. Bureaucracy, however, must not ever replace legitimacy. As Hannah Arendt warned, bureaucracy easily becomes the rule of nobody, a system in which decisions are made everywhere, while responsibility is nowhere to be found.

An EU without the veto right of Member States would slide down a very dangerous slippery slope, which we are actually seeing already. A Union that struggles to build democratic consent falls back on permanent crisis, government governance and an ever-increasing institutional expansion, while gradually hacking away at the very roots on which it rests – the sovereignty of its Member States.

But Europe does not need a permanent machinery of governance, nor does it need a foreign policy detached from its nations and peoples. It needs democratic legitimacy, and it needs accountability, and it needs leaders capable of building consensus between sovereign nations. Because once unanimity disappears, the EU ceases to be a union of equal nations, cooperating freely. It becomes something fundamentally different, a union subjecting sovereign nations to its rule – a foreign rule. History has seen such systems before – Rome, the Soviet Union. Hit the books, read up on it and draw the lessons.

Götz Frömming, March 20, 2026, Bookstores and Susanne Dagen

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/66, pp. 8013-8014. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr State Minister, one accusation can thus not be made against you: With you, it is not boring. Already in the second current hour within the briefest time. Yet I do not know whether that speaks unconditionally for your conduct of office. 

            Johannes Volkmann (CDU/CSU): Rather for the horseshoe theory! 

            Ottilie Klein (CSU/CSU): Yes, exactly!

Ladies and gentlemen, the protest of the exclusion of three leftist radical bookstores from the German publishing prize 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): The book trade is leftist radical! Meine Fresse!

–  we plainly heard it – is a festival of double morality. After the Commissioner for Culture and Media made known his decision, politicians and cultural functionaries warned of a “climate of pre-censorship”. During the Leipzig Book Fair’s opening ceremony, demonstrators stood in front of the Gewandhaus with banners with inscriptions like “Protect Culture – Let Weimer Go!”, and “Red Card for Opinion Snooping!”. The head of the association exchange of the German book trade – which, besides, is that association which took a leading part in the expulsion of the rightist publishers from the two great book fairs – declared, cite: “We will not accept without complaint your autocratic gesture.” End citation. 

            Ronald Gläser (AfD): Inconceivable!

Ladies and gentlemen, here, a political milieu ostensibly fights for the freedom of the printed word. 

            Holger Mann (SPD): Owner-operated bookstores!

It is that same milieu which literally rolls over with demands for censorship and Verbot when it is against the right. And one is, ja, right when one simply contradicts this milieu. 

So as to comprehend this double morality, one needs just once imagine what would have happened 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD: Herr Frömming speaks of morality!

if the Dresden bookseller Susanne Dagen had been nominated for the prize. Ladies and gentlemen, she alone has called into being an entire book fair, and besides without tax money. She would truly have deserved this prize. 

Yet, what would likely have happened? There would have been calls for a boycott from your side, protest and tumult. The Antifa would have marched, etc. etc. Frau Dagen will likely never receive a state prize. Yet I suspect, ladies and gentlemen, she places no special value on that. 

The good of this debate is that it reveals the principal problem of the German cultural scene, and that is the leftist burden, and the hunger for subventions proceeding therefrom. From that then arises so grotesque an accusation as this: Herr Weimer undertakes a state intervention in the promotion of culture. – A State Minister for Culture intervenes in the state promotion of culture: Just imagine! 

            Jörg König (AfD): That is, ja, horrifying!

I ask myself, why at all should book selling be promoted with tax means? 

            David Schliesing (Linke): It will be distinguished!

Does then the grocer who sells wurst, the vehicle mechanic or the hairdresser receive help? Ladies and gentlemen, would it not be better we leave that completely? Why should the Commissioner for Culture and Media with tax money reward bookstores on the facades of which are written the words “Deutschland die, please”, or “Heimat is a call to murder.”? 

Ladies and gentlemen, I have put a minor inquiry; we’ve asked about four additional bookstores. The Interior Ministry’s information is now put forward; it arrived yesterday. It is therein said – I cite with your permission, Frau President: “An additional information on the booksellers named in the inquiry ‘BiBaBuZe […], Karl-Marx-Bookseller’ […] can, for reasons of the good of the state, not follow…Through a public information on the present degree of knowledge, the affected actors could develop defense strategies…”. 

Ladies and gentlemen, from this answer becomes clear that still more booksellers are apparently a case for the Constitution Protection. Herr Weimer, please proceed! 

As the alternative book fair Change Pages [Seiten Wechsel] in Halle took place, the cry of the culture scene called for a boycott and to put pressure on the fair operator to cancel the contract. As Berlin-Treptow was called upon to drive the rightist-conservative on-line portal “Apollo News” out of the district and pound away at it [Tasten zu hauen]. And now you behave as if someone trod on your corns [Hühneraugen getreten]. 

            Holger Mann (SPD): Is that a state institution?

Ladies and gentlemen, this double morality is hypocritical and mendacious. 

The freedom of art is inseparable. Either you make no distinction between left and right, or you refrain from your hypocritical outrage if the left, by way of exception for once, were treated like the right. Without exception! 

            David Schliesing (Linke): Oha!

Or, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps better still: We renounce entirely these prizes and subventions. The bookseller Susanne Dagen has shown: It goes, even without. 

I thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, March 9, 2026, Political Speech Regulation

EU Parliament, March 9, 2026 

Written questions to EU Commission E-001160/2026 

Documents disclosed in a report from the US House Judiciary Committee show that, as part of the EU Internet Forum, the Commission promoted a handbook of borderline content in relation to violent extremism that explicitly classifies ‘populist rhetoric’, ‘anti-EU content’, ‘anti-elite content’, ‘political satire’, ‘meme subculture’ and ‘anti-LGBTIQ content’ as problematic categories to be monitored or limited by platforms, even though these are in themselves lawful forms of political or social expression. 

1. How does the Commission justify equating lawful Eurosceptic or anti-establishment speech and political satire with ‘violent extremism’ in an official handbook, and on what precise legal basis did it urge platforms to use these categories for content moderation beyond what is strictly illegal under EU or national law? 

2. What safeguards did the Commission put in place to ensure that such guidance would not result in systematic discrimination against peaceful opposition movements, conservative viewpoints on migration and gender, or satirical criticism of EU institutions and policies?

Anna Rathert, January 29, 2026, Strength – German and American

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/56, pp. 6715-6716. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Greens lay before us today an interesting motion – not interesting because it offers solutions, but because it reveals their worldview. The text reads like a cry for help. You note that with President Trump, an administration has entered Washington which openly says: “America First”, and no longer manages an international Politik supposedly based on rules, but is again lead by interests. 

Behind that stands a democratic reality; the majority of the Americans have voted for this course. Who finds that unbearable, he needs to learn to deal with it, not to moralize. In your motion, you fear crises and conflicts are intensified when protection and support structures erode. The entire German Politik is fixated on an international protection and support system because it is not dared to stand up for our German fatherland which itself, from itself, can bring forth strength. It is still plainly here, and it is everywhere, even in this house: The old fear of a strong Germany. That is a fallacy [Denkfehler] in which Germany sickens. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): With you, there can be no talk of thought [Denken]!

Departure is taken from material substance in the form of nuclear power, strong industry and economic performance, and one is lost in a system of international organizations like, for example, the EU. Of course, one needs also to affirm protective, rules-based orders without which one fears not to be able to assert oneself against a stronger partner. These orders should guarantee against crises. Yet crises and conflicts do not escalate because somewhere an assistance fund is lacking, or one international resolution too few was issued. Crises escalate because strength is lacking, which is needed for a natural balance of power between states: Economic strength, technological and energy policy strength, a functioning infrastructure: Deutsche Bahn, electricity supply, deterrence and defense capability, and a resilient inner order which is supported socially and culturally. 

You say the Federal government may not continue to belittle itself and needs to self-consciously formulate and represent our interests and values. Ja, nothing would be better than that. We need finally to begin to formulate national German interests, and indeed such which makes us strong and independent; yet that does not go with the self-overestimate put forward here by you. You do not seriously want to explain to the Americans how democracy and economy work 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): It would be sufficient if you would grasp it!

when you here in this country observe the opposition, and are just about de-industrializing Germany. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): We are, besides, no longer in the government!                                                 A little side note.

Your approach for negotiations as equals is completely wrong. For you are evident the motion’s achievements which, as it happens, are what just forced Germany to its knees: Verbote, de-industrialization by energy policy, supply chain law, over-regulation, the forest protection decree – all of which weaken performance and international commerce. 

Who wants to understand America needs to grasp a historic fact: The United States generally first originated and later became a world power because it has economically and militarily asserted itself. And precisely this ability to succeed [Durchsetzungsfähigkeit] they also expect from their counterparts. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): That is just an intellectual solar eclipse!

There is respect in Washington not for appeals, but for strength and self-responsibility. 

Germany on the other hand acts like a late-stage teenager: Making claims and preaching morality, yet little readiness to take up the responsibility for its own sovereignty. As equals  plainly means first build up one’s own strength, and then talk. 

            Vincenz Glaser (Linke): What is your strength? Contact with Russia?

Who only makes demands, and at the same time makes prescriptions, will not be taken seriously. 

And still one thing: If you really find so unbearable a relationship as that of Trump, as you here argue, then you would especially need to make Germany strong and independent, as you were in government responsibility. Yet that you did not do. That, the present Federal government also  does not do – and now you live stuck with the consequences. 

We as the Alternative für Deutschland stand for the antithesis: To again make Germany capable by use of nuclear power, to be reliable, and then negotiate, sovereign, as equals – not to lecture, but to achieve. That goes only with us, and thus our time is just beginning. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]