Blood donation camp held for thalassemia-affected children at Khammam MP's camp office

Cadres of the Congress party organised a host of programmes, including a blood donation camp, and a bike rally, in Khammam, to mark the completion of Congress leader Ramasahayam Raghuram Reddy's one year as MP of Khammam Lok Sabha constituency.
More than 50 persons, including Congress party cadres, donated blood at a camp held at the Khammam MP's camp office on the occasion. The event was organised for the cause of thalassemia-affected children.
District Congress Committee president P. Durga Prasad, Revenue Minister Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy's camp office in-charge T. Dayakar Reddy and others were present.
Speaking on the occasion, the Congress leaders hailed the efforts of Mr Raghuram Reddy in highlighting the issues of public interest in the Parliament and contributing his mite for the development of the erstwhile composite Khammam district.
They recalled that Mr. Reddy raised questions on key topics concerning the development of Telangana and the erstwhile Khammam district, in particular, in Parliament, clocking 92.64% of attendance, in the first year as Khammam MP.
His questions pertained to crucial topics of public interest mainly concerning the imperative need for setting up a Greenfield airport at Kothagudem, change of alignment of Dornakal-Miryalguda new railway line, expansion and upgradation of National Highways among other vital development projects, they said.
The party leaders further added that Mr Reddy ensured succour to people affected by the unprecedented floods in Munneru in 2024, distributed CM Relief Fund cheques to 1,147 needy persons and allocated MPLADS funds worth ₹145 crore for various development works.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

23 minutes ago

• Mint

Jagan Mohan Reddy's car runs over YSRCP worker, former Andhra CM named in FIR

YSRCP chief and former Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy has been named as an accused in a fatal road accident that allegedly occurred when he was on his way to Rentapalla village in Palnadu district recently, a police official said. Guntur district Superintendent of Police S Satish Kumar, addressing a press conference late on Sunday said that upon receiving the information about the old man, Singaiah, who suffered severe bleeding injuries, he was rushed to a hospital but was declared brought dead by doctors. On June 18, Reddy visited Rentapalla to call on a family member of a YSRCP leader who had died by suicide a year ago. The former CM's vehicle went through the Etukuru bypass. "After analysing various evidence, it was found that the deceased was seen under the wheels of Reddy's vehicle," Kumar said. A case was initially registered under Section 106(1) of BNS (causing death by negligence) based on a complaint by the deceased person's wife, Cheeli Lurdhu Mary, at the local police station. After analysing CCTV footage, drone visuals, and circumstantial evidence, "police confirmed that the deceased was run over by the Ex-CM's vehicle in the convoy," said police. Following this "confirmation", police altered the case to include Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 49 of the BNS (Abetment) and intensified the investigation into the circumstances involved. Other accused include Reddy's driver Ramana Reddy, Personal Assistant K Nageshwar Reddy, senior YSRCP leader YV Subbareddy, former MLA Perni Venkataramaiah, and former Minister Vidadala Rajini, Kumar told reporters. Their names have been added in the accused column, said Kumar, adding that legal action will proceed according to due process and applicable provisions of law, he said.

Time of India

24 minutes ago

• Time of India

Israel-Iran war: Congress slams Donald Trump for US strikes; urges Centre to show 'moral courage', break silence on 'Gaza genocide'

Donald Trump NEW DELHI: The Congress party on Monday criticised US President Donald Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, saying it goes against his own statements supporting continued talks with Iran. The party also criticised the Central government for not speaking out against the US bombing or Israel's actions. "President Trump's decision to unleash US air power on Iran makes a 'mockery' of his own calls for the continuation of talks with Iran," Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said in a post on X. He added, "The Indian National Congress reiterates the absolute essentiality of immediate diplomacy and dialogue with Iran. The Government of India must demonstrate greater moral courage than it has so far." — Jairam_Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) Ramesh said the Modi government "has unequivocally neither criticised nor condemned the US bombing and Israel's aggression, bombings and targeted assassinations." "It has also maintained a deafening silence on the genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinians in Gaza," he wrote on X. The statement comes after the US bombed three major nuclear sites in Iran — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — on Sunday, bringing itself directly into the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Husband Sold Son's Car After Bad Grades. Parents Turned Pale When He Did This As Revenge Beach Raider Undo Meanwhile, on Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that India is "deeply concerned" about the conflict between Iran and Israel and called for immediate de-escalation through "dialogue and diplomacy." The US strike on Iran's nuclear sites has raised concerns about a wider conflict in the Middle East. Before the US bombing, Congress parliamentary party chairperson Sonia Gandhi had also spoken on the issue. In an article titled "It is still not too late for India's voice to be heard," she criticised India's silence on the situation in Gaza and Iran, calling it "not just a loss of its voice, but also a surrender of values." In the same article, Gandhi criticised US President Trump for following what she described as a "destructive path" in West Asia, after having earlier spoken against America's long military involvement in the region.

First Post

24 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies