Can you hear me? SALAMANCA DISTRIBUTES FRESH FRUITS
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, D 36 ECEMBER 7-13, 2018 BTR
Action
Association
It’s frustrating to be unable
to hear well enough to enjoy
talking with friends or family.
Hearing disorders make it
hard to hear, but they can be
treated and managed.
There are a number of possible
causes of hearing loss.
These include heredity; certain
diseases and medications, longterm
exposure to loud noise
and just getting older.
There are two main types
of hearing loss. One happens
when your inner ear or auditory
nerve is damaged. This
type is usually permanent. The
other kind happens when sound
waves cannot reach your inner
ear. Earwax build-up, fl uid or a
punctured eardrum can be the
cause. Medical treatment or
surgery can often reverse this
kind of hearing loss.
If you have trouble hearing,
you can get help. Possible treatments
include hearing aids, cochlear
implants, special training,
medication, and surgery
The following questions will
help you determine if you need
to have your hearing tested by
a health professional.
1. Do you feel embarrassed
when you meet new people because
you struggle to hear?
2. Do you feel frustrated
when talking to members of
your family (either in person or
on the phone) because you have
diffi culty hearing them?
3. Do you have diffi culty
hearing or understanding coworkers
or sales help in stores?
4. Do you feel restricted or
limited by a hearing problem?
5. Do you have diffi culty
hearing friends, relatives or
neighbors?
6. Do you have trouble hearing
in the theater?
7. Does a hearing problem
cause you to argue with family
members?
8. Do you have trouble hearing
the TV, computer, or radio
at levels that most people fi nd
loud enough?
9. Do you feel that any diffi
culty with your hearing limits
your personal life or social
life?
10. Do you have trouble hearing
family or friends when you
are together in a restaurant?
If you answered “yes” to
three or more questions, talk
to your primary care provider,
see an otolaryngologist, or an
audiologist.
For more information on,
see the National Institutes of
Health, National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders website at
www.nidcd.nih.gov.
Brought to you by Montefi ore
Medical Group, R.A.I.N. and the
Hartford Institute for Geriatric
Nursing @ NYU, based on material
from the National Institute
on Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders
The Thanksgiving spirit was in full swing when Councilman Rafael
Salamanca joined volunteers at the Hunts Point Gives Back event
at the Hunts Point Produce Market.
(Above) Salamanca (l) and Myra Gordon helped volunteers distribute
over 2,000 bags of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Photo courtesy of Councilman Rafael Salamanca’s Offi ce
BY FRANK V. VERNUCCIO, JR.
The Republican House
moves to investigate alleged
wrongdoings involving the
Clinton Foundation, as well
as actions by former U.S. Attorney
General Loretta Lynch
and James Comey during the
2016 presidential election open
up a broader and deeply troubling
question: Has a double
standard been established
for justice and politics in the
United States?
It is increasingly diffi cult
to overlook the reality that
actions undertaken by Democrat
appointed offi cials have
escaped the appropriate legal
response, or even the level of
intense scrutiny and criticism
they would reasonably entail
if they were performed by a
Republican. It is disingenuous
to argue that partisanship
does not play a signifi cant role
in this. That dichotomy serves
as an enabler for future misdeeds.
Arguably, the most salient
example involves the actions
of Lois Lerner during her tenure
with the Internal Revenue
Service. Even after exposure
and legal action, abuses
by this hyper-partisan offi -
cial continued unpunished.
A 2016 decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit only lightly covered
by many major media sources
found that the IRS violated the
Constitution, was unlawfully
used for partisan purposes,
and refused to comply with a
court order to cease and desist
in its illegal actions. Thirtyeight
non-profi t organizations
from twenty-two states, represented
by the American Center
for Law and Justice were
subjected to violations of their
First Amendment rights.
The Court noted that information
obtained under a
Freedom of Information Act
request revealed that the offending
IRS offi cials “orchestrated
a complex scheme to
dump conservative and Tea
Party non-profi t applicants
into a bureaucratic ‘black
hole.’ Another 294 pages of
documents … also recently released
by Judicial Watch further
establish that ‘top IRS
offi cials in Washington, including
Lois Lerner and Holly
Paz, knew that the agency was
specifi cally targeting ‘Tea
Party’ and other conservative
organizations two full years
before disclosing it to Congress
and the public…”
Despite the blatant nature
of Ms. Lerner’s actions, she received
no punishment.
Other Obama-era examples
abound. Also in 2016, the
Select Committee on Benghazi
released its report and
the information revealed that
the Clinton-era U.S. State Department
knowingly lied to
the American people about
the cause of the attack. It also
revealed that an antiterrorism
team was indeed stopped
from proceeding. Despite the
death of a U.S. Ambassador
and other Americans, and despite
clear evidence of a knowing
refusal to take actions before
and during the attack that
could possibly have prevented
the tragedy, no repercussions
followed.
No issue stands out more,
nor illustrates better, the pro-
Democratic double standard,
and “get out of jail free” attitude
towards those it favors,
than the entire matter of the
Russian uranium deal, in
which the Kremlin’s nuclear
energy agency, Rosatom, took
control of 20% of U.S. uranium.
National Review described
the deal:
“On June 8, 2010, Rosatom,
the Russian State Atomic Energy
Corporation, announced
plans to purchase a 51.4 percent
stake in a …company..
whose international assets
included some 20 percent of
America’s uranium capacity.
Because this active ingredient
in atomic reactors and nuclear
weapons is a strategic
commodity, this $1.3 billion
deal required the approval of
the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States
(CFIUS). Secretary of State
Clinton was one of nine federal
department and agency
heads on that secretive panel.
On June 29, 2010, three weeks
after Rosatom proposed to
Uranium One, Bill Clinton
keynoted a seminar staged by
Renaissance Capital in Moscow,
a reputedly Kremlin-controlled
investment bank that
promoted this transaction. Renaissance
Capital paid Clinton
$500,000 for his one-hour
speech. While CFIUS evaluated
Rosatom’s offer, Clinton
Cash author Peter Schweizer
observed, ‘a spontaneous outbreak
of philanthropy among
eight shareholders in Uranium
One’ began. ‘These Canadian
mining magnates decided
now would be a great
time to donate tens of millions
of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”
Additionally, Secretary
Clinton violated both State
Department protocols and federal
laws and regulations by
using her private email server
for emails containing secret
and top secret messages. Despite
that, in a press conference
then-director of the FBI
James Comey announced “Although
there is evidence of potential
violations of the statutes
… our judgment is that no
reasonable prosecutor would
bring such a case.”
To date, Ms. Clinton has received
no punishment.
The double standard, unfortunately,
has been employed
not only in the spheres
of media and politics but by
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
in matters pertaining
to President Trumps’ anti-terrorism
travel bans.
During his tenure in offi
ce, Barack Obama, on at
least six occasions, barred
potentially dangerous immigrants,
predominately from
Moslem nations, from entering
the United States. Both
President Trump and Obama
employed the same section of
laws, section 212(f) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act
of 1952, (“Whenever the president
fi nds that the entry of
aliens or of any class of aliens
into the United States would
be detrimental to the interests
of the United States, the president
may, by proclamation,
and for such period as he shall
deem necessary, suspend the
entry of all aliens or any class
of aliens as immigrants or
non-immigrant’s or impose
on the entry of aliens any restrictions
he may deem to be
appropriate.”) to justify their
action.
The 9th circuit was quiet
on Obama’s move, but sought
to restrict President Trump.
Numerous other examples,
some involving voting fraud,
could be included in the discussion.
But the point is already
clear. Thanks to a highly
partisan media and a portion
of the court system that places
its own partisan beliefs above
the law, many Democrats have
a sense of invulnerability in
the commission of illegal or
unethical political acts.
/www.nidcd.nih.gov