Trump it all
From sea to shining sea, America sees the Don of a new era
Second Opinion was granted an exclusive interview with the White House.
Second Opinion: Mr President, thank you so much for…
White House (interrupting): Drop this Mr President crap. Call me by my new title, Mr Permanent Resident.
SO: But doesn't making yourself the Permanent Resident go against the Constitution?
PR: Heck, no, There's nothing wrong with my constitution. Cholesterol, BP, all great.
SO: I meant the Constitution of US, the Bill of Rights, and all that.
PR: The heck with the Bill of Rights. Don't you know that two rights make a wrong.
SO: I think it's two wrongs that don't make a right…
PR: Rights, wrongs, what's the diff? Anyways, I'm having a ball with my new sidekick Bibi in Tel Aviv as side by side we kick ass in Iran.
SO: What happened to your sidekick, Elon?
PR: He turned out to be a softie, a real Musk melon. So I took him aside and kicked his ass.
SO: But mightn't all this sidekicking in Iran lead to World War III?
PR: World War III? I didn't know that there'd been I and II. But a good sequel will sure make me a bomb.
SO: I think World War III will involve bombs of a different sort…But tell us how your plans to make America great again are coming along.
PR: They're coming along real swell. Time is making me the Man of the Era.
SO: Wow! That's wonderful. When did that happen?
PR: It happened right after I made Time the MAGAzine of the Era. But now you're gonna have to excuse me. I gotta go and ICE some illegal immigrants, like this bimbo who was smuggled in from France or someplace, and is carryin' on about huddled masses yearnin' to breathe free.
SO: You're deporting Liberty?
PR: Yeah, the Statute of Liberty…
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Contractual employees are entitled to maternity leave, reiterates Orissa High Court
Rejecting a writ appeal of the State government, a Division Bench of Orissa High Court recently upheld a three-year-old judgment passed by a single judge Bench, which had ordered that maternity leave and associated benefits could not be denied to women employed by the State government on contractual basis. In August 2022, the Orissa High Court had ruled in favour of a contractual employee of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, whose maternity leave application from August 17, 2016, to February 12, 2017 had been rejected by the department. The State government appealed against the decision of the single-judge Bench. Since the employee was governed by the terms of her contract, she was not entitled to maternity benefit, the State government maintained Also Read | Maternity benefits: Differentiation not permissible between regular, contractual employees: Calcutta HC The Bench said that the Supreme Court and several other High Courts in the country had passed judgments saying contractual employees were entitled to maternity leave based on the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Rejecting the contention of the State government that only women civil servants were entitled to avail maternity leave, the Bench said 'women employees, for the purpose of availing such benefit, do constitute one homogenous class, and their artificial bifurcation founded on status of appointment falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution'. Declining any further indulgence, the Division Bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo broadly agreed with the reasoning of the single judge Bench that maternity leave with pay or comparable social benefits were to be assured by the state through policies and programmes as India is a signatory nation to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 'These conventions highlight the social significance of 'maternity', and the role of both parents in the family structure and in the upbringing of children. It is said that God could not be everywhere and, therefore, he created mothers. The idea of maternity leave is structured on 'zero separation' between the lactating mother and the breast-feeding baby,' the High Court said, adding that child psychiatrists and obstetricians were of the considered opinion that the physical companionship of mother and baby is mutually advantageous, and promotes bonding between the two, which is essential for their well-being. 'A lactating mother has a fundamental right to breastfeed her baby during its formative years. Similarly, baby has a fundamental right to be breastfed and brought about in a reasonably good condition. These two important rights form an amalgam from which the State's obligation to provide maternity benefits, such as paid leave to the employees, within the permissible resources, would arise,' the Orissa High Court said.
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
An insincere attempt at hollow reforms
The bill groups Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and minorities into a single protected category. 'Minorities', as defined under Article 30 of the Constitution, refer to six religious communities notified by the central government—Buddhists, Christians, Jains, Muslims, Parsis, and Sikhs.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Can't compel Rahul Gandhi to produce book he cited in speech against Savarkar: Court
Pune: A special magisterial court on Thursday rejected the plea filed by the great-grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Satyaki, seeking a direction to the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, to supply a copy of the book he cited during his alleged defamatory speech in London in 2023 against the Hindutva ideologue. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Satyaki is the complainant in the defamation case he filed against Gandhi under the provisions of IPC section 500. Judicial Magistrate First Class Amol Shinde, in his three-page order, observed that Gandhi couldn't be compelled to disclose his evidence before the trial commencement. The court noted, "The accused cannot be compelled to produce the document/book sought by the complainant. As per Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that an order cannot be passed directing the accused to file incriminating documents." Satyaki's lawyer, Sangram Kolhatkar, filed a plea under the provisions of section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking a copy of the book cited by Gandhi in his speech in London on March 5, 2023. Opposing the plea, Gandhi's lawyer, Milind Pawar, submitted that the trial in the case has not yet commenced and his client couldn't be compelled to disclose or divulge or submit any part of the documents relied upon before the trial could commence. Pawar argued Satyaki was required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof was entirely on him. "My client is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If the complainant's plea is allowed, it would cause serious prejudice to Gandhi's right to a fair trial," he said, adding that forcing the defence to prematurely disclose the defence was not permitted under the Criminal Procedure Code and Constitution. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court order read, "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and nor can he be compelled to produce incriminating documents material against him. The plea filed by Savarkar is liable to be rejected."
