titanium backup cloud upload fails

I’m able to backup to Google Drive and Dropbox, but it’s a bit fragile. TB coding for the syncs/backups is really not very robust. The notifications are pretty nondescript and there is no real logging. It seems to me that any glitch in the data transfers cause the syncs to exit, rather than execute any […]

I’m able to backup to Google Drive and Dropbox, but it’s a bit fragile. TB coding for the syncs/backups is really not very robust. The notifications are pretty nondescript and there is no real logging. It seems to me that any glitch in the data transfers cause the syncs to exit, rather than execute any retries.
I’m having some troubles too im on TBP 5.6 and whenever i sync to either drop or drive i get “upload to google drive failed network error”. However i dont need to resume, i can continue. Im not sure if those backups are viable since it was disconnected so many times. The backups work, but the code seems to me to be not very robust. You need to watch your notifications to make sure the backup was successful, and if not, run another one manually.

It’s annoying, and I don’t think it’s going to change.

Google Drive and Dropbox give network errors when trying to upload. I bought Titanium Backup Pro specifically for cloud sync. The first time, it synced about 300 MB to my Google Drive account, but then the backup stopped. Now it doesn’t even sync that much anymore; it just fails – BOTH on Google Drive and on Box. For Google Drive it tells me there was a “Network error”, for Box it tells me: “Internal error com.android.providers.settings.apk.lzop”

Try Foldersync.

Had some issues originally syncing to the cloud where it always failed and it turned out to be Google music related. Specifically I think it was the amount of offline files it couldn’t sync or maybe it was a database, I don’t recall but basically I setup a new job to sync very little and slowly increased it until I figured out what the issue was.

Delete the backup for the apk listed in the error message, then back the app up again. That’s fixed Dropbox sync issues for me on multiple occasions.

caught in the middle

Corporations are NOT people. While it is true that what guides them is the human activity of their executives, boards of directors, managers and employees, all the human emotional factors of the people in the corporation pass through a “filter” created by the two basic rules:

  1. Maximize profit
  2. Do whatever is necessary to continue the business.

(Rule number 1 should be modified when it conflicts with rule 2)

It is a slippery road to give personal rights to corporations. The corporation is an amoral entity, i.e., not governed by human moral values. It lacks guilt for what it does, or empathy for those it harms. What’s worse, this “sociopathic” entity is given the rights of a human being, but not similar responsibilities. A corporation is particularly dangerous because of its great concentration of money, power, and political influence–which it uses freely to reach its goals. To give a concrete example of the dangers of giving corporations personal rights to allow corporations to participate directly on political campaigns is a very serious threat to democracy.

To elaborate and clarify the point of freedom of speech and corporations let’s consider the case of Media corporations, those whose actual activity revolves around disseminating information and opinion. While journalist, writers, news anchors, and the like have 1st amendment rights, the corporations that they work for do not. This might be a subtle point but it is crucial. When corporations do have positions on some issues, and they always have an agenda, this is NOT freedom of speech, it is censorship. This censorship is exercised trough the firing or ostracizing of staff or source that go astray of the corporate line. Thus, to give corporations freedom of speech rights is actually antithetical of the spirit of the first amendment.

One should not confuse the individuals working within a corporation with the corporation proper. Corporations as such do not have national loyalties. Standard Oil supplied the German government during WW II as Coca Cola did. 

The U.S. Federal tax system also helps corporations operate in this amoral way by allowing them to deduct from their profits, with some limitations, the cost of public relations campaigns to cover for the damage they cause, the compensation to victims, the cleanup operations, the cost of legal defense, legal damage awards, and the cost of lobbying to change the laws in their favor or gain exemptions from the law. In other words, if they are caught, corporations pay the costs of their destructive, illegal activities with tax-free money. (Tax free for one corporation = somebody else pays more taxes.)

In their current form, corporations are the most dangerous things on earth–because they threaten the survival of humankind and the entire planetary ecosystem.

Birth control does not mean abortion I am not in favor of abortion but I am against using this kind of complicated issues for political ends. How do one balance in black and white gun ownership and the statement that murder is wrong? In the same way that gun advocates justify killing a human being outside the womb (to themselves) by redefining murder according to the circumstances, others justify killing a human being inside the womb (to themselves) by redefining abortion according to the circumstances.

Tea party types do believe that killing is proper under some conditions and are against governments interfering with the freedoms of people, so why be in favor of government regulations of any kind? Criminalizing behaviors is not a solution for social problems.

According to the CDC (the only agency in the United States that has the ability to monitor and track abortion rates) in 2009 there were 15.1 abortions for every 1,000 live births. Of those abortion 91.7 percent were performed earlier than 13th week of pregnancy, and of those the majority, almost 70 percent, were performed prior to the 8th week of pregnancy. Additionally, statistics show that many of the abortions that occur later in pregnancy are performed for medical reasons.
In this highly informative article published on Patheos.com, the author explains the many reasons she lost faith in the right wing’s pro-life movement.
“Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.”

There’s a circus of political shows with no other end that entertain and distract. Like for example that speech of a democrat meant to be an attack on Republican policies when Reagan had just passed an immigration amnesty, and now it is used for opposite purposes. Life is not as simple as good conservatives on the shadow of God against evil liberal lefties doing the devil’s work.


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Lowe’s Home Improvement has found itself facing a backlash after the retail giant pulled ads from a reality show about American Muslims.

The retail giant stopped advertising on TLC’s “All-American Muslim” after a conservative group known as the Florida Family Association complained, saying the program was “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

The show premiered last month and chronicles the lives of five families from Dearborn, Mich., a Detroit suburb with a large Muslim and Arab-American population.

A state senator from Southern California said Sunday he was considering calling for a boycott.

Calling the Lowe’s decision “un-American” and “naked religious bigotry,” Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, told The Associated Press he would also consider legislative action if Lowe’s doesn’t apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads. The senator sent a letter outlining his complaints to Lowe’s Chief Executive Officer Robert A. Niblock.

“The show is about what it’s like to be a Muslim in America, and it touches on the discrimination they sometimes face. And that kind of discrimination is exactly what’s happening here with Lowe’s,” Lieu said.

Petition

The Florida Family Association, a Florida hate group, has been aggressively targeting TLC’s new reality TV show, “All-American Muslim,”  calling it “propaganda” that “hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

Worse, hardware giant Lowe’s caved to pressure from the group and pulled its advertising. A Lowe’s spokesperson called the show a “lightning rod,” even though the show merely shows ordinary Muslim Americans leading normal lives!

Maha Hilal and Darakshan Raha, two Muslim-American women from Washington D.C., sprung into action and started a petition on Change.org to get the company to reverse course. Will you sign Maha and Darakshan’s petition calling on Lowe’s to reverse its decision to pull advertising on TLC’s “All-American Muslim” and apologize for its misguided action?

Florida Family Association’s biggest problem with “All-American Muslim” is that “the show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.”

Lowe’s is a business that makes decisions just like any other: based on its public image and its bottom line. If thousands of us sign Maha and Darakshan’s petition, we’ll show Lowe’s that customers and all Americans want companies that stand for tolerance and respect, not hate and fear.

Please sign Maha and Darakshan’s petition and tell Lowe’s to apologize and reverse its decision:

http://www.change.org/petitions/lowes-home-improvement-apologize-and-reinstate-advertisements-on-tlcs-all-american-muslim

People are using Change.org every day to win incredible changes in communities all over the world. Please stand with Maha and Darakshan now to help them win.

Thanks,

– Weldon and the Change.org team

P.S. Thousands of petitions are started on Change.org every month. Here are some that need your support now:
Nilton Deza has seen whole communities destroyed by toxic waste, displacement and abusive labor practices gold mining. Join his campaign asking Macy’s to join the “No Dirty Gold” campaign this holiday season.
Maria Eyles is a disabled widow in Southern California. She’s fighting Wells Fargo to get a loan modification so she can afford to stay in her home.
D.C. college student Katie Breslin is petitioning to get Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence (SAFE) kits and trained staff in every D.C. hospital so no sexual assault survivor is turned away without treatment.
95% of puppies sold by Petland USA come from mills where dogs are bred again and again, creating a lifetime of health problems. Join the campaign to get Petland USA to commit to not selling puppies from puppy mills — just like Petland Canada already has.

Corporations are NOT people. While it is true that what guides them is the human activity of their executives, boards of directors, managers and employees, all the human emotional factors of the people in the corporation pass through a “filter” created by the two basic rules:

  1. Maximize profit
  2. Do whatever is necessary to continue the business.

(Rule number 1 should be modified when it conflicts with rule 2)

It is a slippery road to give personal rights to corporations. The corporation is an amoral entity, i.e., not governed by human moral values. It lacks guilt for what it does, or empathy for those it harms. What’s worse, this “sociopathic” entity is given the rights of a human being, but not similar responsibilities. A corporation is particularly dangerous because of its great concentration of money, power, and political influence–which it uses freely to reach its goals. To give a concrete example of the dangers of giving corporations personal rights to allow corporations to participate directly on political campaigns is a very serious threat to democracy.

To elaborate and clarify the point of freedom of speech and corporations let’s consider the case of Media corporations, those whose actual activity revolves around disseminating information and opinion. While journalist, writers, news anchors, and the like have 1st amendment rights, the corporations that they work for do not. This might be a subtle point but it is crucial. When corporations do have positions on some issues, and they always have an agenda, this is NOT freedom of speech, it is censorship. This censorship is exercised trough the firing or ostracizing of staff or source that go astray of the corporate line. Thus, to give corporations freedom of speech rights is actually antithetical of the spirit of the first amendment.

One should not confuse the individuals working within a corporation with the corporation proper. Corporations as such do not have national loyalties. Standard Oil supplied the German government during WW II as Coca Cola did. 

The U.S. Federal tax system also helps corporations operate in this amoral way by allowing them to deduct from their profits, with some limitations, the cost of public relations campaigns to cover for the damage they cause, the compensation to victims, the cleanup operations, the cost of legal defense, legal damage awards, and the cost of lobbying to change the laws in their favor or gain exemptions from the law. In other words, if they are caught, corporations pay the costs of their destructive, illegal activities with tax-free money. (Tax free for one corporation = somebody else pays more taxes.)

In their current form, corporations are the most dangerous things on earth–because they threaten the survival of humankind and the entire planetary ecosystem.

Birth control does not mean abortion I am not in favor of abortion but I am against using this kind of complicated issues for political ends. How do one balance in black and white gun ownership and the statement that murder is wrong? In the same way that gun advocates justify killing a human being outside the womb (to themselves) by redefining murder according to the circumstances, others justify killing a human being inside the womb (to themselves) by redefining abortion according to the circumstances.

Tea party types do believe that killing is proper under some conditions and are against governments interfering with the freedoms of people, so why be in favor of government regulations of any kind? Criminalizing behaviors is not a solution for social problems.

According to the CDC (the only agency in the United States that has the ability to monitor and track abortion rates) in 2009 there were 15.1 abortions for every 1,000 live births. Of those abortion 91.7 percent were performed earlier than 13th week of pregnancy, and of those the majority, almost 70 percent, were performed prior to the 8th week of pregnancy. Additionally, statistics show that many of the abortions that occur later in pregnancy are performed for medical reasons.
In this highly informative article published on Patheos.com, the author explains the many reasons she lost faith in the right wing’s pro-life movement.
“Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.”

There’s a circus of political shows with no other end that entertain and distract. Like for example that speech of a democrat meant to be an attack on Republican policies when Reagan had just passed an immigration amnesty, and now it is used for opposite purposes. Life is not as simple as good conservatives on the shadow of God against evil liberal lefties doing the devil’s work.


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Lowe’s Home Improvement has found itself facing a backlash after the retail giant pulled ads from a reality show about American Muslims.

The retail giant stopped advertising on TLC’s “All-American Muslim” after a conservative group known as the Florida Family Association complained, saying the program was “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

The show premiered last month and chronicles the lives of five families from Dearborn, Mich., a Detroit suburb with a large Muslim and Arab-American population.

A state senator from Southern California said Sunday he was considering calling for a boycott.

Calling the Lowe’s decision “un-American” and “naked religious bigotry,” Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, told The Associated Press he would also consider legislative action if Lowe’s doesn’t apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads. The senator sent a letter outlining his complaints to Lowe’s Chief Executive Officer Robert A. Niblock.

“The show is about what it’s like to be a Muslim in America, and it touches on the discrimination they sometimes face. And that kind of discrimination is exactly what’s happening here with Lowe’s,” Lieu said.

Petition

The Florida Family Association, a Florida hate group, has been aggressively targeting TLC’s new reality TV show, “All-American Muslim,”  calling it “propaganda” that “hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

Worse, hardware giant Lowe’s caved to pressure from the group and pulled its advertising. A Lowe’s spokesperson called the show a “lightning rod,” even though the show merely shows ordinary Muslim Americans leading normal lives!

Maha Hilal and Darakshan Raha, two Muslim-American women from Washington D.C., sprung into action and started a petition on Change.org to get the company to reverse course. Will you sign Maha and Darakshan’s petition calling on Lowe’s to reverse its decision to pull advertising on TLC’s “All-American Muslim” and apologize for its misguided action?

Florida Family Association’s biggest problem with “All-American Muslim” is that “the show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.”

Lowe’s is a business that makes decisions just like any other: based on its public image and its bottom line. If thousands of us sign Maha and Darakshan’s petition, we’ll show Lowe’s that customers and all Americans want companies that stand for tolerance and respect, not hate and fear.

Please sign Maha and Darakshan’s petition and tell Lowe’s to apologize and reverse its decision:

http://www.change.org/petitions/lowes-home-improvement-apologize-and-reinstate-advertisements-on-tlcs-all-american-muslim

People are using Change.org every day to win incredible changes in communities all over the world. Please stand with Maha and Darakshan now to help them win.

Thanks,

– Weldon and the Change.org team

P.S. Thousands of petitions are started on Change.org every month. Here are some that need your support now:
Nilton Deza has seen whole communities destroyed by toxic waste, displacement and abusive labor practices gold mining. Join his campaign asking Macy’s to join the “No Dirty Gold” campaign this holiday season.
Maria Eyles is a disabled widow in Southern California. She’s fighting Wells Fargo to get a loan modification so she can afford to stay in her home.
D.C. college student Katie Breslin is petitioning to get Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence (SAFE) kits and trained staff in every D.C. hospital so no sexual assault survivor is turned away without treatment.
95% of puppies sold by Petland USA come from mills where dogs are bred again and again, creating a lifetime of health problems. Join the campaign to get Petland USA to commit to not selling puppies from puppy mills — just like Petland Canada already has.

hyper-fertile baby machines

Mexifornia (also Calexico or Califaztlán) is a Portmanteau and Neologism of Mexico and California, which refers to what some see as the Mexicanization/Hispanicization of the U.S. state of California as a result of increased legal and especially illegal migration of Mexican and other Hispanic people into California and the transformation of many aspects of the culture of the state.

Mexifornia is seen as a state level version of what is now known as Amexica, the merging of America and Mexico;
“The United States of “Amexica” share more than a border and a common heritage: both sides welcome the benefits of trade but struggle with the pressures of growth”. Timemagazine.[1]
This is a topic of a heated debate between the advocates of amnesty for illegal immigrants on one side and those wishing to enforce immigration laws on the other side.

See also

References


A Frightening Analysis

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: First to destroy America, “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, “We could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'”

Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

“E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘x! xenophobes’ halt discussion and debate.”

“Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Origins:   Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. Of the above-quoted third person account regarding his speech on the perils of multiculturalism, he told Snopes.com in mid-June 2005:


Yes, it is a speech I gave a year and a half ago in Washington D.C. It was a 5 minute speech, and I am amazed and gratified it has received so much coverage.



What is the future of Spanish in the United States?

BY  AND 18 COMMENT


FT_Spanish_New
With more than 37 million speakers, Spanish is by far the most spoken non-English language in the U.S. today among people ages 5 and older. It is also one of the fastest-growing, with the number of speakers up 233% since 1980, when there were 11 million Spanish speakers. (The number of Vietnamese speakers grew faster, up 599% over the same period).






Mexifornia: A State of Becoming

by Victor Davis HANSON
Brain LAMB Interviews Victor HANSON

LAMB, HOST: Victor Davis HANSON, the name “Mexifornia” comes from
what?
HANSON: Actually, it`s a term that I discovered that was used by sort of the La
Razza (ph) left that was a connotation for a new hybrid-cultured California that
would be not part of Mexico and not part of the United States. So the editors that
I worked with embraced that as the title, but a lot of people think it came from the
conservative right, but actually, it didn`t
LAMB: Who`s La Razza?
HANSON: It`s a very funny word. It means “the race.” There`s a National
Council of La Razza that`s an advocacy group, people, they claim, of Mexican
heritage. But I`m very worried about that nomenclature because it reminds me of
the connotations of “Das Volk.” Any time you have a word for “the people,” but
it really means the race, I think it`s outside the boundaries of the American
assimilationist experience.
 LAMB: What`s a classics professor doing writing a book about Mexifornia?
 HANSON: I don`t know! Sometimes I wish I hadn`t have written it. But I
actually live on a farm in central California, and I am a fifth generation. I`ve lived
with Mexican-Americans. My daughter`s boyfriend`s a Mexican-American. I
have a brother married to a Mexican-American, step-nephews and nieces. So it
was sort of a memoir, a literary memoir of what I grew up with, and it was — it
was prompted by the idea that I thought that the world that I used to know of
assimilation and second and third-generation Mexican-Americans were such
wonderful citizens that this new generation was not getting the same
opportunities. I was worried about the problems for the future of California.



Fertile Matters
The Politics of Mexican-Origin Women’s Reproduction
By Elena R. Gutiérrez


Fertile Matters is an exploration of the ways we have come to think about the reproduction of women of Mexican origin in the United States. In particular, I look closely at one of the most popular and longstanding public stereotypes that portray Mexican American and Mexican women as “hyper-fertile baby machines” who “breed like rabbits.” Although these labels have become colloquially acceptable, I use them to also signify the related beliefs that Mexican families are unduly large and that Mexican-origin women do not use birth control. By examining the historical and sociopolitical evolution of these racial stereotypes, I reveal a complex network of character, ideology, time, and place that has yielded the collectively accepted image of women of Mexican origin as prolific “breeders.”

Chicana feminist scholars have previously documented the existence of this stereotype. However, during the course of writing this book, I was struck by the resilience of these images within public perceptions. For example, almost without fail, when I mentioned that I was researching the reproductive politics of Mexican American women, I received the response, “That is such an important topic. They have so many children!” Latino and non-Latino individuals alike often pointed out the “huge problem” of teenage pregnancy in Latino communities or commented that Latinas do not use birth control. Many asked me to explain why Mexican women have so many children. This widespread perception that Mexican women have too many children, and the belief that this reproductive behavior is a social problem that requires fixing, compelled me to continue trying to understand the sources and consequences of these ideas.

Although the stereotype of Mexican-origin women as perpetually pregnant is longstanding, our reproduction has been targeted for the past fifteen years as a major U.S. social problem. Newspapers carry headlines about the changing composition of the nation’s racial and ethnic makeup, the so-called Latinization of America. Due to a higher than average birth rate among Mexican Americans and a steady stream of immigrants from Mexico, Mexican-origin people are the fastest growing minority group in the United States. As a consequence, the reproduction of Mexican immigrant women has been a central theme in contemporary U.S. politics since the 1990s.

There is no clearer marker of this phenomenon—that is, the construct of Mexican women’s fertility as a social problem—than the passage of Proposition 187, proposed in 1994. The initiative, passed by California voters, was intended to take strong and deliberate measures to “Save Our State” from Mexican immigration. The campaign denied prenatal care and other social services to undocumented immigrants, specifically those of Mexican origin, and particularly women and children. Many of the proposition’s backers identified pregnant immigrants as the problem, claiming that they come to the country illegally to have their babies on U.S. soil in order to achieve citizenship for their children and benefits—namely, access to welfare and other public services.

Although Prop. 187 was eventually overturned in 1996, its original passage demonstrated the growing public concern over the so-called problem of Mexican reproduction and the increased public support for proposals to stop it. While some scholars suggest that this recent focus on women signals a new twist in nativist and anti-immigrant sentiment, I demonstrate that public concern about the reproductive behaviors of women of Mexican origin has a much longer presence in the United States, beginning as far back as the turn of the twentieth century.

Throughout Fertile Matters I demonstrate the gradual crystallization of widespread interest in the reproduction and “hyper-fertility” of women of Mexican origin during the 1970s. My purpose is in large part to systematically document the development of discourse about women of Mexican origin as “breeders” over the second half of the twentieth century.

Another goal of the book is to demonstrate the impact that such discourses have on the reproductive experiences of the women themselves. Specifically, I examine the coercive sterilization of women of Mexican origin at the University of Southern California-Los Angeles County Medical Center (LACMC) during the early 1970s. My research reveals that the perception of women of Mexican origin as “breeding like rabbits” was manifested in the coercive actions of doctors and other health providers at LACMC who believed they had the right to sterilize women who, in their opinion, had too many children. The case of Madrigal v. Quilligan provides strong evidence that racializing images and beliefs were crucial factors in the abusive handling of these women, both during their deliveries at LACMC and in the Los Angeles County courtroom where their case was tried.

Since I began this project ten years ago, a growing body of literature has documented that reproductive politics are central to racial politics and vice versa. U.S. racial politics and all women’s childbearing capacities have been intimately linked and manipulated throughout history. My research has shown that for women of color, racist stereotypes exist to justify the control of their fertility, and that activists in all communities have resisted accepting these images in their struggles for reproductive justice. However, we still know little about how these stereotypes work.

Fertile Matters intends to deepen public understanding of how the racial politics of reproduction have developed for women of Mexican origin in the United States. It shows that how we talk and think about reproduction is part of a system of racial domination that shapes social policy and impacts individual women’s lives. And finally, it aims to convince readers that reproductive politics are indeed fertile matters for discourse and disclosure, not only for women of Mexican origin, but for all communities.
Chapter Overview

Chapter One provides an overview of the theoretical perspectives and issues that frame my analysis, primarily social constructionist approaches to the study of social problems, racial formation theory, and feminist studies of the racial politics of reproduction. I also sketch a general picture of the ways in which Mexican-origin women’s reproduction has been racialized historically, particularly as they have been cast as “breeders.”

Chapter Two presents the historical background necessary to understand the development of the social construction of Mexican-origin women during the second half of the twentieth century. Focusing on social concerns about overpopulation and immigration that developed after World War II, this account highlights the primary actors and institutions considered in the remainder of the book.

Chapter Three is an empirical case study of the coercive sterilization of Mexican-origin women at Los Angeles County Medical Center, and the trial of Madrigal v. Quilligan that followed. I focus on how the idea that women of Mexican origin have too many children led to the abuses that occurred in both the hospital and the courtroom.

Chapter Four examines the construction of the category of “Mexican-origin women’s fertility” through a review of the development of social scientific interest in the topic. I critically assess the empirical findings of this research trajectory and suggest that this mode of inquiry plays a fundamental role in the social construction of Mexican-origin women’s hyper-fertility.

Chapter Five is a case study based on primary analysis of the platforms of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) Inc., and its offshoot, the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). I highlight the interests of John Tanton, a former president of ZPG and the founder of FAIR, who was concerned about the “indirect effect” of immigration: the reproduction of Mexican women.

Through consideration of the published writings and public discussions of Chicana activists, in Chapter Six I show how they contest predominant characterizations of Mexican-origin women as breeders and develop a reproductive justice agenda that reflects their position as a racially oppressed group in the United States.

The final chapter discusses the centrality of the reproduction of Mexican immigrant women to more contemporary politics (the 1990s-present), focusing on the controversies over granting birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, changes in California over welfare reform, and the denial of prenatal care to Mexican immigrant women. These legislative and public battles not only represent the most recent incarnations in the lengthy historical trajectory of attempts to control Mexican-origin women’s reproduction, but also indicate that the social construction of these women’s fertility as a social problem has become institutionalized.
Chapter One. The Fertility of Women of Mexican Origin: A Social Constructionist Approach

“I think what we are trying to show is that throughout the entire period that the doctors were not using medical reasons to perform these sterilizations, but were using social reasons. That is very pertinent to this case.”

Attorney Antonia Hernández spoke these words as she implored federal district court judge Jesse Curtis to hear the testimony of her next witness. Along with co-counsel Charles Nabarette, Hernández represented ten women of Mexican origin filing a class-action civil suit against physicians at the University of Southern California-Los Angeles County Medical Center (LACMC). The plaintiffs in the case of Madrigal v. Quilligan, which was tried in 1978, accused the doctors of coercively sterilizing each of them between June 1971 and March 1974. Many alleged that hospital personnel forced them into signing consent forms while under the duress of labor pains, or that they were never approached and informed about the procedure at all. All of the women had various levels of English comprehension, and most testified that they did not understand that tubal ligation would irreversibly terminate their childbearing. The plaintiffs filed suit against state and federal officials, and the administrators and doctors at LACMC for violation of their constitutionally guaranteed right to procreate. In addition to financial compensation, the plaintiffs requested that the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare require federally funded hospitals to provide thorough sterilization counseling and consent forms in Spanish. On this, the sixth day of the trial, tension in the courtroom was high.

The contested witness was Karen Benker, a medical student at the University of Southern California Medical School, and an employee of the Women’s Hospital of LACMC during the period when the alleged forced sterilizations of countless Mexican-origin women occurred. As the only witness who had observed the alleged coercive practices of the doctors firsthand and was willing to testify in court, Benker’s observations confirmed Hernández’s argument that the sterilization of her clients at this hospital was “socially motivated.”

What Dr. Benker would share with the court could prove that the coercive sterilization of these ten plaintiffs was not incidental, accidental, or medically necessary, but was part of a concerted attempt by the doctors at the Women’s Hospital of LACMC to reduce the birth rate of Mexican-origin women. Based on this testimony, Hernández would maintain that many of the physicians deceptively pushed women into sterilization in accordance with an attitude widespread in the hospital community that the high childbearing rates of Mexican-origin women contributed to many social problems and could be effectively remedied through sterilization.

I begin this book with an empirical case study of the forced sterilization at LACMC because it illustrates the convergent discourses around Mexican-origin women’s fertility and the material ramifications of ideological notions of Mexican-origin women as “hyper-fertile” that surfaced during this period. The case of Madrigal v. Quilligan lucidly illustrates the central argument of this book: namely, that during the 1970s a confluence of ideas crystallized to construct the fertility of Mexican-origin women as a social problem to be remedied. These issues are part of a larger public policy discourse that has continued into the twenty-first century.
The Demography and Politics of the Population Growth of People of Mexican Origin

The 2000 U.S. census statistically confirmed that Latinos have become the largest racial-ethnic group living in the United States, totaling over forty million people. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. Latino population increased by 58 percent.

In what has been called a demographic revolution, Latinos were 12.5 percent of the nation’s population in 2000, and are expected to comprise 25 percent of the U.S. population by 2050. An ever-increasing volume of academic study, public policy investigation, and social commentary addresses this demographic change. Due to both higher birthrates than the national average and continued immigration from Mexico, persons of Mexican origin represent the largest portion of the Latino population growth in the last thirty plus years. In March 2002, Mexicans comprised 66.9 percent of the Latino population.

Demographic and government interest in the birthrates of the Mexican-origin community have also grown steadily over the past three decades. In 1998, the U.S. government conducted a first-ever, multiyear analysis of Hispanic birthrates, which established that, even within the rising rates for Hispanic women as a group, women of Mexican origin display markedly higher rates of childbirth than other Latinas. Media coverage of the 1998 report by the National Center for Health Statistics publicized the “dramatic rise” in Hispanic births between 1989 and 1995, attributing much of this growth to the “soaring” rates of teenage pregnancy. Commentators expressed an almost singular preoccupation with the ascending birthrates of Latina teens (which notably overtook those of African Americans for the first time in history) and pondered the social and political ramifications of such a demographic pattern. One commentator from the conservative journal National Review warned,

For those who cluck cheerfully about the ‘strong family ties’ of Hispanic immigrants, the new figures are ominous: two-thirds of young Latina mothers have no husbands. . . . Because the Latino share of the population is expanding, any burgeoning Latino culture of poverty will make its impact widely felt. Thirty-three years ago Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) gave a prescient warning about the breakdown of the African American family, for which he had no easy remedy. Now, thanks to feckless immigration policies, the United States is sowing difficulties which could prove of at least comparable scope.

Alluding to Senator Moynihan’s much-critiqued analysis of black family life, which faulted the matriarchal family structure of African Americans as the core cause of their poverty, the above statements suggest a similar case for national action concerning the reproductive behavior of Latinas.

Social and political interest in controlling the fertility of Latinas is of course nothing new. Control of the reproduction of Mexican, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican women’s reproduction served as a crucial tool of colonization and social repression of entire communities. Puerto Rico’s population has long served as a social laboratory for the U.S. birth control industry, and ideologies of population control and economic development justified the massive sterilization abuse of Puerto Rican women. With 33 percent of Puerto Rico’s women sterilized, and similar rates for Puerto Rican women living on the U.S. mainland, anthropologist Iris Lopez argues that the procedure has now become an institutionalized, or “medicalized,” practice of women faced with limited options. She writes, “Once Puerto Rican women’s reproductive decision-making is medicalized, they lose the ability to control their own fertility. . . . The medicalization of women’s reproductive behavior infused and gave medical and state authority more control.”

Other commentators similarly portray immigrant families as opportunists who are sapping social services and other scarce public resources. Public discourse surrounding California’s Proposition 187 (passed in November 1994), a paradigmatic embodiment of contemporary nativism in the United States, provides a classic case in point. The fertility of women of Mexican origin assumed center stage in the debates surrounding this controversial proposition, which was a measure designed to deny undocumented immigrants access to education and health care services. Proponents of the “Save Our State” initiative persistently alluded to the high fertility of Mexican women as one of the primary problems with recent immigration from Mexico (births to Hispanic mothers outnumber all other groups in the state). The very substance of the policy prescriptions of Proposition 187 (which I explore in greater detail in Chapter Seven) assumes that the allure of social benefits (i.e., health care, education, welfare) is the driving motivation for Mexican women to cross the border to bear their children on U.S. soil.

Supporters of the anti-immigration proposition encouraged strict sanctions to deter migrants from coming to the United States and “stealing” health and social service benefits that were not rightfully theirs. Although the proposition’s expressed goal was to halt all immigration, especially from Mexico, women were particularly targeted. Proposition 187 singled out “poor, pregnant immigrant women who, with their children, come to the United States to give birth in publicly-financed county hospitals, allowing the newborns to become U.S. citizens, and all their children to receive public assistance, medical care, and public school education.”

Fear of the “Latinization” of California and the possible ascent of people of Mexican origin to political power has led to vociferous anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican mobilization in the state and in the larger Southwest, sentiments that are increasingly echoed across the nation.

Consider the message in Mexifornia, a book written by classics professor Victor Davis Hanson of California State University, Fresno. Published in 2003, the title reflects “the strange society that is emerging as the result of a demographic and cultural revolution like no other in our times.” Hanson attributes a transformation of U.S. culture to a lack of assimilation by recent immigrants. At the heart of the complaint, though, is the ultimate culprit. Hanson bemoans that “every year the state must continue to deal with a succession of first-generation immigrant families with three to six children at or below the poverty line. Moreover, no advocate in the university promotes family planning as a means of economic self-sufficiency; there is no campaign in Chicano studies departments encouraging immigrant families to have only one or two children so as to ensure financial solvency.” According to Hanson, the continuing immigration of large, poor families has led to an unassimilated class of Mexicans that is changing the very nature of the state of California.

Again in 2003, Samuel Huntington, a distinguished Harvard professor, received national recognition for his treatise on “The Hispanic Challenge.” In Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity, Huntington wrote that “the single most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American ‘natives.'” Huntington clearly identifies the growth of the Mexican-origin population as a very real problem for the United States. He further warns that if these “floods” of immigrants are not stopped, the country’s cultural and political integrity will be endangered.

Some scholars suggest that the recent focus on women signals a “new twist” in nativist and anti-immigrant sentiment. However, criticisms of immigrant motherhood have prevailed in the United States since at least 1890. According to Katrina Irving, between 1890 and 1925 “all writers, no matter what their ideological position—nativism (‘scientific racism’), American-ization, or cultural pluralism—drew upon discourses that articulated feminine gender in order to construct an immigrant woman who would, in turn, embody their particular version of the immigrant ‘problem.'” In particular, nativists questioned the eugenic quality of children of very fertile immigrant mothers, predating contemporary concerns about the fertility of Mexican immigrant women. Later in this chapter, I will show that over the course of the twentieth century not only nativists, but some social scientists, members of the medical community, and population control proponents have expressed a similar racial anxiety over the reproduction of women of Mexican origin in the United States. First, I clarify my argument and review the major theoretical threads upon which my analysis is built.
The Tools of Social Constructionism: Situating the Fertility of Women of Mexican Origin

To explore the politics of Mexican women’s reproduction, I draw upon the analytical perspective represented by sociological research on the social construction of social problems. Such an approach(well articulated by Malcolm Spector and John Kitsuse, and Joseph Gusfield, and perceptively deployed by Constance Nathanson) posits that it is not the putative social conditions that should be the focus of study, but the processes central to the definition of any social occurrence as a “social problem.”

The construction of a social problem is a collective process within which individuals or groups define some set of putative circumstances as unduly problematic. While objectivists believe that social problems are literal conditions that pose a concretely real and objective threat to the good of society, social constructionists approach social problems from an alternative standpoint. Contextual constructionists argue that social problems do not objectively exist, but are fundamentally conceived by certain interests within a particular context; they are “constructed in the human mind, constituted by the definitional process.” Proponents of contextual constructionism argue that it is impossible for any given set of conditions to be considered a social problem outside of its sociopolitical context, and thus historical analysis is necessary to any project engaging the construction of such a problem.

The epistemological approach offered by social constructionism relies on an empirical focus on the actors, historical moments, and interests that contribute to the construction of the fertility of Mexican women as a matter of public interest and concern. Moreover, in his thoughtful analysis of drinking and driving, Joseph Gusfield notes that “analyzing public problems as structures means finding the conceptual and institutional orderliness in which they emerge in the public arena. The public arena is not a field on which all can play on equal terms; some have greater access than others and greater power and ability to shape the definition of public issues.” My research thus focuses centrally on those institutions that claim ownership of the problem of the fertility of Mexican women—that is, demographers, medical professionals, population policymakers, and Chicana feminists.

Accordingly, my intention is to “turn the camera around” to investigate those institutions, groups, and policies that have observed the reproduction of women of Mexican origin. Such a maneuver helps us shift the focus from attempting to unravel the “truth” of what is happening with the fertility and reproduction of women of Mexican origin toward an exploration of perspectives, interests, and policies that have played a role in creating “truths” about this topic.

A social constructionist perspective provides a completely different vantage point from which to engage the topic of the fertility of women of Mexican origin. In this vein, Sally Andrade, one of the first scholars to trace the biased nature of social science research about women of Mexican origin, wrote in 1982,

If one’s primary interest were research on the family size of Chicanas, the primary question remaining to be clarified would be whether the cultural background or the educational status of Mexican American women is the more important factor in terms of understanding their fertility regulation attitudes and behaviors. If one wants to examine the implications of social sciences inability to confront issues of racism, sexism, and social class bias with reference to research on Mexican women, however, different questions emerge.

Thus, principles of social constructionism provide a useful corrective to most of the extant social scientific research on the reproduction of women of Mexican origin, which primarily attempts to document and understand their “unusually high rates” and focuses on the attitudinal and behavioral aspects of their family planning practices. Typically based on secondary analysis of quantitative data, such projects conceptualize the reproduction of Mexican-origin women as a culturally dictated behavior to be understood. These projects largely reinscribe the reproduction of women of Mexican origin as the primary locus of inquiry, and the women themselves as the principal unit of analysis, often ignoring the sociopolitical context within which the reproductive activities of Mexican-origin women occur. A social constructionist approach considers academic scholarship as complicit in the creation of ideas about the fertility of women of Mexican origin. As such, demographic research about Mexican-origin women’s fertility is treated as a focal object of study in my analysis rather than as literature upon which my analysis is built.

Diverging from the previous social scientific research, in this project I argue that the important question is not how many children are born to women of Mexican origin or whether abortion intervention or birth control is practiced. Rather, I explore why the fertility of women of Mexican origin is in itself such a significant issue in so many sociopolitical discourses. This is not a study of the fertility of Mexican women per se, but an investigation of the sociohistorical context within which such a topic, and the structures that shape it, become significant.

Because such emphasis has been placed on enumerating and tracking the actual rates of fertility for Mexican-origin women (the number of children they bear), this project is particularly interested in exploring the concept of “fertility.” Popular discussions of such a category are inevitably tied up with a host of other related issues such as reproductive behavior, birth control practices, and attitudes toward the family. This project will thus envelop any and all topics related to reproduction with respect to Mexican-origin women, and the terms fertility and reproduction will be used as synonyms throughout to encompass this variety.
Discourse, Ideology, and the Racial Politics of Reproduction

When anthropologists Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp theorize the politics of reproduction—which bridges the micro-level of reproductive behavior and practices, and the macro-level of the politics involved in that process—they stress that reproductive issues are largely discursive terrain and that discourse analysis “can be used to analyze ‘reproduction’ as an aspect of other contests over hegemonic control.” Since I am primarily concerned with the ideological construction of the fertility of women of Mexican origin as a social problem, this project pays considerable attention to discursive realms. Such a focus on discourse fundamentally assumes its political nature.

Moreover, my focus on the “ideological effects” of these discursive constructions implies that “these practices are always more than semiotic because they inscribe signs within social practices as a condition of existence of the meanings and subjectivities produced.” Thus, discourse is also located in public policy, social institutions, and practices.

Racialized reproductive images about women of Mexican origin circulating in public discourse are central to this project. I am equally interested in how these ideological constructs are tied to structural and institutional modes of reproduction and racial control. Drawing from racialization theory, most extensively articulated by Omi and Winant, I argue that the social construction of women of Mexican origin as hyper-fertile is a racial project and that the discourse surrounding and constructing their reproductive behavior as problematic must be viewed as racially based. Omi and Winant define racial formation as “the historical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed,” and as “a process of historically situated projects in which human bodies and social structures are represented and organized.” Imperative to my perspective is the vigilant consideration of racial projects in both their ideological and structural nature. I argue that ideological representations of women of Mexican origin as “hyper-fertile” must not only be analyzed in their form and content, but additionally in their relation to the structural associations within which they historically emerge.

I further draw upon a growing body of critical analyses that argue that race and reproductive politics are fundamentally intertwined. Research since the 1980s has traced the systemic intrusions on the reproductive liberty of African American and other women of color and the historical control of fertility as a mechanism of racial domination and economic exploitation. Legal scholar Dorothy Roberts’s treatise Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty deftly demonstrates that racial domination and reproductive control have been intricately tied throughout history. Central to her examination is how images about African American women render significant implications for their reproductive freedom. According to Roberts, “Regulating Black women’s fertility seems so imperative because of the existence of powerful stereotypes that propel these policies; myths are meaningful as expressions of what we believe to be true; [and] have justified the restrictions on Black women’s childbearing.”

Other authors have documented how the development of racializing images and ideologies is central to the reproductive control of women of color. Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins has identified that “controlling images” such as the mammy, welfare queen, and Jezebel are historically deployed to devalue African American women. Collins’s ground-breaking work theorizes how controlling images of African American women serve as “powerful ideological justifications” for class, race, gender, and sexuality domination. Stressing the ubiquity of these ideas in her now-classic treatise Black Feminist Thought, Collins writes that “schools, the news media, and government agencies constitute important sites for reproducing these controlling images. Scholarship has helped produce and disseminate controlling images.” It is in these spaces where the discourse of reproductive politics is created and communicated.

Through the denial of black motherhood and the characterization of African American women as “bad mothers,” the material deprivation of their reproductive rights to bear children has been symbolically justified. This dichotomization of good/bad, black/white motherhood is indeed a significant aspect of the racial politics of reproduction in the United States. However, in contrast to the depiction of African American women as neglectful mothers, historically and contemporarily, women of Mexican origin are more typically cast as overly identified mothers and reproducers.
The Politics of the Fertility of Women of Mexican Origin: Historical Antecedents

Women’s procreation has been a subject of political interest from the time of the Spanish colonization of Mexico. Spanish colonizers claimed a state imperative to control the childbearing of native women. Because a growing California needed a Hispanicized Indian population, missionaries took affirmative steps to encourage reproduction. Historian Antonia Castañeda has documented that in addition to encouraging marriages of converted AmerIndian women and mestizo soldiers by offering bounties, colonial officials also brought niños and niñas de cuna (foundlings) from Spain to populate California.

Castañeda’s research further demonstrates how women of Mexican origin first came to be depicted as hyper-fertile. In particular, impressions collected in the narratives of Euro-American pioneers (many of which were commissioned by Hubert Howe Bancroft during the 1870s and 1880s) provide some of the first documented characterizations of the Mexican family, which dominated subsequent histories of early California. According to Castañeda, descriptions of the patriarchal Spanish-Mexican family, their reproductive patterns, and family size abound in the recordings of Euro-Americans and elite Californios: “the texts described California women as ‘remarkably fecund’ and frequently commented that families were exceptionally large, with women bearing twelve, fifteen, and twenty children.” These stereotypical narratives provided a foundation on which most of the history of Mexican California is written. However, the research of Castañeda and others has dispelled these common mischaracterizations, suggesting that there was significant regional variation in the size of Spanish-Mexican California families, many of which had much smaller numbers of children than noted in founding texts.

Accounts of the reproduction of women of Mexican origin in the United States continued into the twentieth century. For example, in 1929 Samuel J. Holmes, a University of California professor, posed a foreboding question in an article entitled “Perils of the Mexican Invasion,” published in the North American Review: “At a recent state fair in Sacramento, California, when prizes were offered for the largest families, the first prize went to a Mexican family with sixteen children…. This excessive fecundity is of course exceptional, but it is indicative of the breeding habits of this class of our population. Is it not evident, then, that the Mexican invasion is bound to have far-reaching effects upon our national life?” Concerns about a possible “Mexican invasion” of the United States are clearly expressed here, with particular speculation about the resulting cultural effects on the nation.

From the beginning of the century into the early 1940s, growing nativist sentiment blamed Mexican immigrants for societies’ ills and commonly bemoaned their fertility. In a 1929 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, the editor offered his opinion under the heading “The Mexican Conquest”: “The very high Mexican birth rate tends to depress still further the low white birth rate. Thus a race problem of the greatest magnitude is being allowed to develop for future generations to regret and in spite of the fact that the Mexican Indian is considered a most undesirable ethnic stock for the melting pot.”

This concern about the fertility of Mexican women was wholeheartedly adopted by those associated with eugenic efforts. Sociologist David Montejano wrote:

The outcry about social decay reached near-hysterical levels. Eugenicists pointed out with alarm that Mexicans were not only intellectually inferior—they were also quite “fecund.” Imaginative calculations were formulated to drive home the point. C. M. Goethe, president of the Immigrant Study Commission, speaking of a Los Angeles Mexican with thirty-three children, figured that “it would take 14,641 American fathers…at a three-child rate, to equal the descendants of this one Mexican father four generations hence.”

Goethe, a Sacramento realtor, wrote in 1935, “It is this high birthrate that makes Mexican peon immigration such a menace. Peons multiply like rabbits.” The social panic that eugenicists instigated often incited public outcries to deport Mexicans (immigrant or not); at times their messages were informed by germ theories and hereditarianism.

Alternatively, proponents of the Americanist agenda (1915-1929) believed that efforts should be made to assimilate the Mexican population in the United States. A growing body of literature has shown that these efforts primarily focused on the assimilation of Mexican immigrant women and their children into American culture. Historian George Sánchez has noted that for Americanists, motherhood represented “the juncture at which the Mexican immigrant women’s potential role in Americanization was most highly valued.” Ideas about fertility, reproduction, and motherhood all gained significant racial meaning within the process of Americanization, as female Mexican immigrants were believed to be the bearers and sharers of culture.

In her study of the Houchen Settlement, a “Christian Americanization” program run in El Paso, Texas, from 1920 to 1960, historian Vicki Ruiz argues that this and other groups like it paid particular attention to expectant mothers. Millie Rockford, who worked at the settlement, shared the logic behind this approach with Ruiz: “If we can teach her [the mother to be] the modern methods of cooking and preparing foods and simple hygiene habits for herself and her family, we have gained a stride.”

In some cases Americanization policies bore important implications for the birth control practices of Mexican immigrant women. Americanists attempted to inculcate Anglo ideals of family planning and family size into the women’s values in hopes of ultimately changing behavior as well. Efforts to transform the reproductive ideas and behavior of recent immigrants were fueled by nativist and Americanist fears of race suicide. According to Sánchez, “the nativists wanted to control Mexican population growth for fear of a ‘greaser invasion,’ while Americanists viewed unrestricted population growth as a vestige of Old World ways that would have to be abandoned in a modern industrial world.” Regardless of their motivations, both nativists and Americanists centered their efforts on the reproduction of Mexican immigrant women.

More recently, social science literature on Mexican American women provides an acute example of these racializing images. Prevalent among depictions of Mexican-origin women in this body of research are assumptions that they are solely defined by their capacity to bear children. In a 1982 review of such representations in the extant social scientific literature, Sally Andrade wrote, “An exaggerated ‘super-mother’ figure emerges from a summary of the above impressions about Mexican American women: the unceasingly self-sacrificing, dedicated, ever-fertile woman totally without aspiration for self or initiative to do other than reproduce.”

While dissimilar to the ideological constructs that shape the reproductive context for African American women, images of Mexican women as overly identified mothers are also embedded in a framework of racial domination. One important component of the circumvention of Mexican women’s motherhood is the social construction of their hyper-fertility. Chicana feminist scholars have challenged these prevailing notions, showing that not only are these women complex in their identification as mothers, but that they are sexual beings who have diverse opinions regarding reproductive matters. Such efforts to deconstruct existing racist discourse and contribute to more accurate representations and analyses of the reproduction of women of Mexican origin are deliberately part of a Chicana feminist project. As Aida Hurtado explains, “Chicana feminisms proclaim that creating and controlling their own discourse are essential to decolonization. Passive silence has been the enemy that allowed others to construct who Chicanas are, what they can and cannot do, and what they are capable of becoming.”

While scholars demonstrate the complex construction of racializing images and ideologies central to the reproductive control of African American and women of Mexican origin, less obvious are the ways that these images impact women’s lives. I argue that beyond serving as key components of a “generalized ideology of domination,” by which the oppression of women of color is justified, these notions are often manifested in social institutions and actors that construct individual experience. In this volume, I advance such an examination by considering both the discursive dimensions of fertility and reproduction as they pertain to women of Mexican origin and their circulation in policy and public attitudes—or rather, how these social constructions work.

Throughout the following chapters I explore ideas about Mexican-origin women’s fertility in public discourse, assess the reasons for their deployment, and grapple with the relationship between “ideas” about fertility and the actual abuses enacted on the bodies of Mexican-origin women, including forced sterilization. I examine multiple forms of data (including written texts, oral statements, and other documents gathered through archival research) that construct social knowledge about Mexican-origin women’s fertility. I empirically ground our notions of Mexican-origin women as “breeders” in historical context, and explore the implications of these ideas in the discursive practices of various social actors.

Mexifornia (also Calexico or Califaztlán) is a Portmanteau and Neologism of Mexico and California, which refers to what some see as the Mexicanization/Hispanicization of the U.S. state of California as a result of increased legal and especially illegal migration of Mexican and other Hispanic people into California and the transformation of many aspects of the culture of the state.

Mexifornia is seen as a state level version of what is now known as Amexica, the merging of America and Mexico;
“The United States of “Amexica” share more than a border and a common heritage: both sides welcome the benefits of trade but struggle with the pressures of growth”. Timemagazine.[1]
This is a topic of a heated debate between the advocates of amnesty for illegal immigrants on one side and those wishing to enforce immigration laws on the other side.

See also

References


A Frightening Analysis

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: First to destroy America, “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, “We could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'”

Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

“E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘x! xenophobes’ halt discussion and debate.”

“Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Origins:   Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. Of the above-quoted third person account regarding his speech on the perils of multiculturalism, he told Snopes.com in mid-June 2005:


Yes, it is a speech I gave a year and a half ago in Washington D.C. It was a 5 minute speech, and I am amazed and gratified it has received so much coverage.



What is the future of Spanish in the United States?

BY  AND 18 COMMENT


FT_Spanish_New
With more than 37 million speakers, Spanish is by far the most spoken non-English language in the U.S. today among people ages 5 and older. It is also one of the fastest-growing, with the number of speakers up 233% since 1980, when there were 11 million Spanish speakers. (The number of Vietnamese speakers grew faster, up 599% over the same period).





Mexifornia: A State of Becoming

by Victor Davis HANSON
Brain LAMB Interviews Victor HANSON

LAMB, HOST: Victor Davis HANSON, the name “Mexifornia” comes from
what?
HANSON: Actually, it`s a term that I discovered that was used by sort of the La
Razza (ph) left that was a connotation for a new hybrid-cultured California that
would be not part of Mexico and not part of the United States. So the editors that
I worked with embraced that as the title, but a lot of people think it came from the
conservative right, but actually, it didn`t
LAMB: Who`s La Razza?
HANSON: It`s a very funny word. It means “the race.” There`s a National
Council of La Razza that`s an advocacy group, people, they claim, of Mexican
heritage. But I`m very worried about that nomenclature because it reminds me of
the connotations of “Das Volk.” Any time you have a word for “the people,” but
it really means the race, I think it`s outside the boundaries of the American
assimilationist experience.
 LAMB: What`s a classics professor doing writing a book about Mexifornia?
 HANSON: I don`t know! Sometimes I wish I hadn`t have written it. But I
actually live on a farm in central California, and I am a fifth generation. I`ve lived
with Mexican-Americans. My daughter`s boyfriend`s a Mexican-American. I
have a brother married to a Mexican-American, step-nephews and nieces. So it
was sort of a memoir, a literary memoir of what I grew up with, and it was — it
was prompted by the idea that I thought that the world that I used to know of
assimilation and second and third-generation Mexican-Americans were such
wonderful citizens that this new generation was not getting the same
opportunities. I was worried about the problems for the future of California.



Fertile Matters
The Politics of Mexican-Origin Women’s Reproduction
By Elena R. Gutiérrez


Fertile Matters is an exploration of the ways we have come to think about the reproduction of women of Mexican origin in the United States. In particular, I look closely at one of the most popular and longstanding public stereotypes that portray Mexican American and Mexican women as “hyper-fertile baby machines” who “breed like rabbits.” Although these labels have become colloquially acceptable, I use them to also signify the related beliefs that Mexican families are unduly large and that Mexican-origin women do not use birth control. By examining the historical and sociopolitical evolution of these racial stereotypes, I reveal a complex network of character, ideology, time, and place that has yielded the collectively accepted image of women of Mexican origin as prolific “breeders.”

Chicana feminist scholars have previously documented the existence of this stereotype. However, during the course of writing this book, I was struck by the resilience of these images within public perceptions. For example, almost without fail, when I mentioned that I was researching the reproductive politics of Mexican American women, I received the response, “That is such an important topic. They have so many children!” Latino and non-Latino individuals alike often pointed out the “huge problem” of teenage pregnancy in Latino communities or commented that Latinas do not use birth control. Many asked me to explain why Mexican women have so many children. This widespread perception that Mexican women have too many children, and the belief that this reproductive behavior is a social problem that requires fixing, compelled me to continue trying to understand the sources and consequences of these ideas.

Although the stereotype of Mexican-origin women as perpetually pregnant is longstanding, our reproduction has been targeted for the past fifteen years as a major U.S. social problem. Newspapers carry headlines about the changing composition of the nation’s racial and ethnic makeup, the so-called Latinization of America. Due to a higher than average birth rate among Mexican Americans and a steady stream of immigrants from Mexico, Mexican-origin people are the fastest growing minority group in the United States. As a consequence, the reproduction of Mexican immigrant women has been a central theme in contemporary U.S. politics since the 1990s.

There is no clearer marker of this phenomenon—that is, the construct of Mexican women’s fertility as a social problem—than the passage of Proposition 187, proposed in 1994. The initiative, passed by California voters, was intended to take strong and deliberate measures to “Save Our State” from Mexican immigration. The campaign denied prenatal care and other social services to undocumented immigrants, specifically those of Mexican origin, and particularly women and children. Many of the proposition’s backers identified pregnant immigrants as the problem, claiming that they come to the country illegally to have their babies on U.S. soil in order to achieve citizenship for their children and benefits—namely, access to welfare and other public services.

Although Prop. 187 was eventually overturned in 1996, its original passage demonstrated the growing public concern over the so-called problem of Mexican reproduction and the increased public support for proposals to stop it. While some scholars suggest that this recent focus on women signals a new twist in nativist and anti-immigrant sentiment, I demonstrate that public concern about the reproductive behaviors of women of Mexican origin has a much longer presence in the United States, beginning as far back as the turn of the twentieth century.

Throughout Fertile Matters I demonstrate the gradual crystallization of widespread interest in the reproduction and “hyper-fertility” of women of Mexican origin during the 1970s. My purpose is in large part to systematically document the development of discourse about women of Mexican origin as “breeders” over the second half of the twentieth century.

Another goal of the book is to demonstrate the impact that such discourses have on the reproductive experiences of the women themselves. Specifically, I examine the coercive sterilization of women of Mexican origin at the University of Southern California-Los Angeles County Medical Center (LACMC) during the early 1970s. My research reveals that the perception of women of Mexican origin as “breeding like rabbits” was manifested in the coercive actions of doctors and other health providers at LACMC who believed they had the right to sterilize women who, in their opinion, had too many children. The case of Madrigal v. Quilligan provides strong evidence that racializing images and beliefs were crucial factors in the abusive handling of these women, both during their deliveries at LACMC and in the Los Angeles County courtroom where their case was tried.

Since I began this project ten years ago, a growing body of literature has documented that reproductive politics are central to racial politics and vice versa. U.S. racial politics and all women’s childbearing capacities have been intimately linked and manipulated throughout history. My research has shown that for women of color, racist stereotypes exist to justify the control of their fertility, and that activists in all communities have resisted accepting these images in their struggles for reproductive justice. However, we still know little about how these stereotypes work.

Fertile Matters intends to deepen public understanding of how the racial politics of reproduction have developed for women of Mexican origin in the United States. It shows that how we talk and think about reproduction is part of a system of racial domination that shapes social policy and impacts individual women’s lives. And finally, it aims to convince readers that reproductive politics are indeed fertile matters for discourse and disclosure, not only for women of Mexican origin, but for all communities.
Chapter Overview

Chapter One provides an overview of the theoretical perspectives and issues that frame my analysis, primarily social constructionist approaches to the study of social problems, racial formation theory, and feminist studies of the racial politics of reproduction. I also sketch a general picture of the ways in which Mexican-origin women’s reproduction has been racialized historically, particularly as they have been cast as “breeders.”

Chapter Two presents the historical background necessary to understand the development of the social construction of Mexican-origin women during the second half of the twentieth century. Focusing on social concerns about overpopulation and immigration that developed after World War II, this account highlights the primary actors and institutions considered in the remainder of the book.

Chapter Three is an empirical case study of the coercive sterilization of Mexican-origin women at Los Angeles County Medical Center, and the trial of Madrigal v. Quilligan that followed. I focus on how the idea that women of Mexican origin have too many children led to the abuses that occurred in both the hospital and the courtroom.

Chapter Four examines the construction of the category of “Mexican-origin women’s fertility” through a review of the development of social scientific interest in the topic. I critically assess the empirical findings of this research trajectory and suggest that this mode of inquiry plays a fundamental role in the social construction of Mexican-origin women’s hyper-fertility.

Chapter Five is a case study based on primary analysis of the platforms of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) Inc., and its offshoot, the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). I highlight the interests of John Tanton, a former president of ZPG and the founder of FAIR, who was concerned about the “indirect effect” of immigration: the reproduction of Mexican women.

Through consideration of the published writings and public discussions of Chicana activists, in Chapter Six I show how they contest predominant characterizations of Mexican-origin women as breeders and develop a reproductive justice agenda that reflects their position as a racially oppressed group in the United States.

The final chapter discusses the centrality of the reproduction of Mexican immigrant women to more contemporary politics (the 1990s-present), focusing on the controversies over granting birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, changes in California over welfare reform, and the denial of prenatal care to Mexican immigrant women. These legislative and public battles not only represent the most recent incarnations in the lengthy historical trajectory of attempts to control Mexican-origin women’s reproduction, but also indicate that the social construction of these women’s fertility as a social problem has become institutionalized.
Chapter One. The Fertility of Women of Mexican Origin: A Social Constructionist Approach

“I think what we are trying to show is that throughout the entire period that the doctors were not using medical reasons to perform these sterilizations, but were using social reasons. That is very pertinent to this case.”

Attorney Antonia Hernández spoke these words as she implored federal district court judge Jesse Curtis to hear the testimony of her next witness. Along with co-counsel Charles Nabarette, Hernández represented ten women of Mexican origin filing a class-action civil suit against physicians at the University of Southern California-Los Angeles County Medical Center (LACMC). The plaintiffs in the case of Madrigal v. Quilligan, which was tried in 1978, accused the doctors of coercively sterilizing each of them between June 1971 and March 1974. Many alleged that hospital personnel forced them into signing consent forms while under the duress of labor pains, or that they were never approached and informed about the procedure at all. All of the women had various levels of English comprehension, and most testified that they did not understand that tubal ligation would irreversibly terminate their childbearing. The plaintiffs filed suit against state and federal officials, and the administrators and doctors at LACMC for violation of their constitutionally guaranteed right to procreate. In addition to financial compensation, the plaintiffs requested that the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare require federally funded hospitals to provide thorough sterilization counseling and consent forms in Spanish. On this, the sixth day of the trial, tension in the courtroom was high.

The contested witness was Karen Benker, a medical student at the University of Southern California Medical School, and an employee of the Women’s Hospital of LACMC during the period when the alleged forced sterilizations of countless Mexican-origin women occurred. As the only witness who had observed the alleged coercive practices of the doctors firsthand and was willing to testify in court, Benker’s observations confirmed Hernández’s argument that the sterilization of her clients at this hospital was “socially motivated.”

What Dr. Benker would share with the court could prove that the coercive sterilization of these ten plaintiffs was not incidental, accidental, or medically necessary, but was part of a concerted attempt by the doctors at the Women’s Hospital of LACMC to reduce the birth rate of Mexican-origin women. Based on this testimony, Hernández would maintain that many of the physicians deceptively pushed women into sterilization in accordance with an attitude widespread in the hospital community that the high childbearing rates of Mexican-origin women contributed to many social problems and could be effectively remedied through sterilization.

I begin this book with an empirical case study of the forced sterilization at LACMC because it illustrates the convergent discourses around Mexican-origin women’s fertility and the material ramifications of ideological notions of Mexican-origin women as “hyper-fertile” that surfaced during this period. The case of Madrigal v. Quilligan lucidly illustrates the central argument of this book: namely, that during the 1970s a confluence of ideas crystallized to construct the fertility of Mexican-origin women as a social problem to be remedied. These issues are part of a larger public policy discourse that has continued into the twenty-first century.
The Demography and Politics of the Population Growth of People of Mexican Origin

The 2000 U.S. census statistically confirmed that Latinos have become the largest racial-ethnic group living in the United States, totaling over forty million people. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. Latino population increased by 58 percent.

In what has been called a demographic revolution, Latinos were 12.5 percent of the nation’s population in 2000, and are expected to comprise 25 percent of the U.S. population by 2050. An ever-increasing volume of academic study, public policy investigation, and social commentary addresses this demographic change. Due to both higher birthrates than the national average and continued immigration from Mexico, persons of Mexican origin represent the largest portion of the Latino population growth in the last thirty plus years. In March 2002, Mexicans comprised 66.9 percent of the Latino population.

Demographic and government interest in the birthrates of the Mexican-origin community have also grown steadily over the past three decades. In 1998, the U.S. government conducted a first-ever, multiyear analysis of Hispanic birthrates, which established that, even within the rising rates for Hispanic women as a group, women of Mexican origin display markedly higher rates of childbirth than other Latinas. Media coverage of the 1998 report by the National Center for Health Statistics publicized the “dramatic rise” in Hispanic births between 1989 and 1995, attributing much of this growth to the “soaring” rates of teenage pregnancy. Commentators expressed an almost singular preoccupation with the ascending birthrates of Latina teens (which notably overtook those of African Americans for the first time in history) and pondered the social and political ramifications of such a demographic pattern. One commentator from the conservative journal National Review warned,

For those who cluck cheerfully about the ‘strong family ties’ of Hispanic immigrants, the new figures are ominous: two-thirds of young Latina mothers have no husbands. . . . Because the Latino share of the population is expanding, any burgeoning Latino culture of poverty will make its impact widely felt. Thirty-three years ago Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) gave a prescient warning about the breakdown of the African American family, for which he had no easy remedy. Now, thanks to feckless immigration policies, the United States is sowing difficulties which could prove of at least comparable scope.

Alluding to Senator Moynihan’s much-critiqued analysis of black family life, which faulted the matriarchal family structure of African Americans as the core cause of their poverty, the above statements suggest a similar case for national action concerning the reproductive behavior of Latinas.

Social and political interest in controlling the fertility of Latinas is of course nothing new. Control of the reproduction of Mexican, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican women’s reproduction served as a crucial tool of colonization and social repression of entire communities. Puerto Rico’s population has long served as a social laboratory for the U.S. birth control industry, and ideologies of population control and economic development justified the massive sterilization abuse of Puerto Rican women. With 33 percent of Puerto Rico’s women sterilized, and similar rates for Puerto Rican women living on the U.S. mainland, anthropologist Iris Lopez argues that the procedure has now become an institutionalized, or “medicalized,” practice of women faced with limited options. She writes, “Once Puerto Rican women’s reproductive decision-making is medicalized, they lose the ability to control their own fertility. . . . The medicalization of women’s reproductive behavior infused and gave medical and state authority more control.”

Other commentators similarly portray immigrant families as opportunists who are sapping social services and other scarce public resources. Public discourse surrounding California’s Proposition 187 (passed in November 1994), a paradigmatic embodiment of contemporary nativism in the United States, provides a classic case in point. The fertility of women of Mexican origin assumed center stage in the debates surrounding this controversial proposition, which was a measure designed to deny undocumented immigrants access to education and health care services. Proponents of the “Save Our State” initiative persistently alluded to the high fertility of Mexican women as one of the primary problems with recent immigration from Mexico (births to Hispanic mothers outnumber all other groups in the state). The very substance of the policy prescriptions of Proposition 187 (which I explore in greater detail in Chapter Seven) assumes that the allure of social benefits (i.e., health care, education, welfare) is the driving motivation for Mexican women to cross the border to bear their children on U.S. soil.

Supporters of the anti-immigration proposition encouraged strict sanctions to deter migrants from coming to the United States and “stealing” health and social service benefits that were not rightfully theirs. Although the proposition’s expressed goal was to halt all immigration, especially from Mexico, women were particularly targeted. Proposition 187 singled out “poor, pregnant immigrant women who, with their children, come to the United States to give birth in publicly-financed county hospitals, allowing the newborns to become U.S. citizens, and all their children to receive public assistance, medical care, and public school education.”

Fear of the “Latinization” of California and the possible ascent of people of Mexican origin to political power has led to vociferous anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican mobilization in the state and in the larger Southwest, sentiments that are increasingly echoed across the nation.

Consider the message in Mexifornia, a book written by classics professor Victor Davis Hanson of California State University, Fresno. Published in 2003, the title reflects “the strange society that is emerging as the result of a demographic and cultural revolution like no other in our times.” Hanson attributes a transformation of U.S. culture to a lack of assimilation by recent immigrants. At the heart of the complaint, though, is the ultimate culprit. Hanson bemoans that “every year the state must continue to deal with a succession of first-generation immigrant families with three to six children at or below the poverty line. Moreover, no advocate in the university promotes family planning as a means of economic self-sufficiency; there is no campaign in Chicano studies departments encouraging immigrant families to have only one or two children so as to ensure financial solvency.” According to Hanson, the continuing immigration of large, poor families has led to an unassimilated class of Mexicans that is changing the very nature of the state of California.

Again in 2003, Samuel Huntington, a distinguished Harvard professor, received national recognition for his treatise on “The Hispanic Challenge.” In Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity, Huntington wrote that “the single most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American ‘natives.'” Huntington clearly identifies the growth of the Mexican-origin population as a very real problem for the United States. He further warns that if these “floods” of immigrants are not stopped, the country’s cultural and political integrity will be endangered.

Some scholars suggest that the recent focus on women signals a “new twist” in nativist and anti-immigrant sentiment. However, criticisms of immigrant motherhood have prevailed in the United States since at least 1890. According to Katrina Irving, between 1890 and 1925 “all writers, no matter what their ideological position—nativism (‘scientific racism’), American-ization, or cultural pluralism—drew upon discourses that articulated feminine gender in order to construct an immigrant woman who would, in turn, embody their particular version of the immigrant ‘problem.'” In particular, nativists questioned the eugenic quality of children of very fertile immigrant mothers, predating contemporary concerns about the fertility of Mexican immigrant women. Later in this chapter, I will show that over the course of the twentieth century not only nativists, but some social scientists, members of the medical community, and population control proponents have expressed a similar racial anxiety over the reproduction of women of Mexican origin in the United States. First, I clarify my argument and review the major theoretical threads upon which my analysis is built.
The Tools of Social Constructionism: Situating the Fertility of Women of Mexican Origin

To explore the politics of Mexican women’s reproduction, I draw upon the analytical perspective represented by sociological research on the social construction of social problems. Such an approach(well articulated by Malcolm Spector and John Kitsuse, and Joseph Gusfield, and perceptively deployed by Constance Nathanson) posits that it is not the putative social conditions that should be the focus of study, but the processes central to the definition of any social occurrence as a “social problem.”

The construction of a social problem is a collective process within which individuals or groups define some set of putative circumstances as unduly problematic. While objectivists believe that social problems are literal conditions that pose a concretely real and objective threat to the good of society, social constructionists approach social problems from an alternative standpoint. Contextual constructionists argue that social problems do not objectively exist, but are fundamentally conceived by certain interests within a particular context; they are “constructed in the human mind, constituted by the definitional process.” Proponents of contextual constructionism argue that it is impossible for any given set of conditions to be considered a social problem outside of its sociopolitical context, and thus historical analysis is necessary to any project engaging the construction of such a problem.

The epistemological approach offered by social constructionism relies on an empirical focus on the actors, historical moments, and interests that contribute to the construction of the fertility of Mexican women as a matter of public interest and concern. Moreover, in his thoughtful analysis of drinking and driving, Joseph Gusfield notes that “analyzing public problems as structures means finding the conceptual and institutional orderliness in which they emerge in the public arena. The public arena is not a field on which all can play on equal terms; some have greater access than others and greater power and ability to shape the definition of public issues.” My research thus focuses centrally on those institutions that claim ownership of the problem of the fertility of Mexican women—that is, demographers, medical professionals, population policymakers, and Chicana feminists.

Accordingly, my intention is to “turn the camera around” to investigate those institutions, groups, and policies that have observed the reproduction of women of Mexican origin. Such a maneuver helps us shift the focus from attempting to unravel the “truth” of what is happening with the fertility and reproduction of women of Mexican origin toward an exploration of perspectives, interests, and policies that have played a role in creating “truths” about this topic.

A social constructionist perspective provides a completely different vantage point from which to engage the topic of the fertility of women of Mexican origin. In this vein, Sally Andrade, one of the first scholars to trace the biased nature of social science research about women of Mexican origin, wrote in 1982,

If one’s primary interest were research on the family size of Chicanas, the primary question remaining to be clarified would be whether the cultural background or the educational status of Mexican American women is the more important factor in terms of understanding their fertility regulation attitudes and behaviors. If one wants to examine the implications of social sciences inability to confront issues of racism, sexism, and social class bias with reference to research on Mexican women, however, different questions emerge.

Thus, principles of social constructionism provide a useful corrective to most of the extant social scientific research on the reproduction of women of Mexican origin, which primarily attempts to document and understand their “unusually high rates” and focuses on the attitudinal and behavioral aspects of their family planning practices. Typically based on secondary analysis of quantitative data, such projects conceptualize the reproduction of Mexican-origin women as a culturally dictated behavior to be understood. These projects largely reinscribe the reproduction of women of Mexican origin as the primary locus of inquiry, and the women themselves as the principal unit of analysis, often ignoring the sociopolitical context within which the reproductive activities of Mexican-origin women occur. A social constructionist approach considers academic scholarship as complicit in the creation of ideas about the fertility of women of Mexican origin. As such, demographic research about Mexican-origin women’s fertility is treated as a focal object of study in my analysis rather than as literature upon which my analysis is built.

Diverging from the previous social scientific research, in this project I argue that the important question is not how many children are born to women of Mexican origin or whether abortion intervention or birth control is practiced. Rather, I explore why the fertility of women of Mexican origin is in itself such a significant issue in so many sociopolitical discourses. This is not a study of the fertility of Mexican women per se, but an investigation of the sociohistorical context within which such a topic, and the structures that shape it, become significant.

Because such emphasis has been placed on enumerating and tracking the actual rates of fertility for Mexican-origin women (the number of children they bear), this project is particularly interested in exploring the concept of “fertility.” Popular discussions of such a category are inevitably tied up with a host of other related issues such as reproductive behavior, birth control practices, and attitudes toward the family. This project will thus envelop any and all topics related to reproduction with respect to Mexican-origin women, and the terms fertility and reproduction will be used as synonyms throughout to encompass this variety.
Discourse, Ideology, and the Racial Politics of Reproduction

When anthropologists Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp theorize the politics of reproduction—which bridges the micro-level of reproductive behavior and practices, and the macro-level of the politics involved in that process—they stress that reproductive issues are largely discursive terrain and that discourse analysis “can be used to analyze ‘reproduction’ as an aspect of other contests over hegemonic control.” Since I am primarily concerned with the ideological construction of the fertility of women of Mexican origin as a social problem, this project pays considerable attention to discursive realms. Such a focus on discourse fundamentally assumes its political nature.

Moreover, my focus on the “ideological effects” of these discursive constructions implies that “these practices are always more than semiotic because they inscribe signs within social practices as a condition of existence of the meanings and subjectivities produced.” Thus, discourse is also located in public policy, social institutions, and practices.

Racialized reproductive images about women of Mexican origin circulating in public discourse are central to this project. I am equally interested in how these ideological constructs are tied to structural and institutional modes of reproduction and racial control. Drawing from racialization theory, most extensively articulated by Omi and Winant, I argue that the social construction of women of Mexican origin as hyper-fertile is a racial project and that the discourse surrounding and constructing their reproductive behavior as problematic must be viewed as racially based. Omi and Winant define racial formation as “the historical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed,” and as “a process of historically situated projects in which human bodies and social structures are represented and organized.” Imperative to my perspective is the vigilant consideration of racial projects in both their ideological and structural nature. I argue that ideological representations of women of Mexican origin as “hyper-fertile” must not only be analyzed in their form and content, but additionally in their relation to the structural associations within which they historically emerge.

I further draw upon a growing body of critical analyses that argue that race and reproductive politics are fundamentally intertwined. Research since the 1980s has traced the systemic intrusions on the reproductive liberty of African American and other women of color and the historical control of fertility as a mechanism of racial domination and economic exploitation. Legal scholar Dorothy Roberts’s treatise Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty deftly demonstrates that racial domination and reproductive control have been intricately tied throughout history. Central to her examination is how images about African American women render significant implications for their reproductive freedom. According to Roberts, “Regulating Black women’s fertility seems so imperative because of the existence of powerful stereotypes that propel these policies; myths are meaningful as expressions of what we believe to be true; [and] have justified the restrictions on Black women’s childbearing.”

Other authors have documented how the development of racializing images and ideologies is central to the reproductive control of women of color. Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins has identified that “controlling images” such as the mammy, welfare queen, and Jezebel are historically deployed to devalue African American women. Collins’s ground-breaking work theorizes how controlling images of African American women serve as “powerful ideological justifications” for class, race, gender, and sexuality domination. Stressing the ubiquity of these ideas in her now-classic treatise Black Feminist Thought, Collins writes that “schools, the news media, and government agencies constitute important sites for reproducing these controlling images. Scholarship has helped produce and disseminate controlling images.” It is in these spaces where the discourse of reproductive politics is created and communicated.

Through the denial of black motherhood and the characterization of African American women as “bad mothers,” the material deprivation of their reproductive rights to bear children has been symbolically justified. This dichotomization of good/bad, black/white motherhood is indeed a significant aspect of the racial politics of reproduction in the United States. However, in contrast to the depiction of African American women as neglectful mothers, historically and contemporarily, women of Mexican origin are more typically cast as overly identified mothers and reproducers.
The Politics of the Fertility of Women of Mexican Origin: Historical Antecedents

Women’s procreation has been a subject of political interest from the time of the Spanish colonization of Mexico. Spanish colonizers claimed a state imperative to control the childbearing of native women. Because a growing California needed a Hispanicized Indian population, missionaries took affirmative steps to encourage reproduction. Historian Antonia Castañeda has documented that in addition to encouraging marriages of converted AmerIndian women and mestizo soldiers by offering bounties, colonial officials also brought niños and niñas de cuna (foundlings) from Spain to populate California.

Castañeda’s research further demonstrates how women of Mexican origin first came to be depicted as hyper-fertile. In particular, impressions collected in the narratives of Euro-American pioneers (many of which were commissioned by Hubert Howe Bancroft during the 1870s and 1880s) provide some of the first documented characterizations of the Mexican family, which dominated subsequent histories of early California. According to Castañeda, descriptions of the patriarchal Spanish-Mexican family, their reproductive patterns, and family size abound in the recordings of Euro-Americans and elite Californios: “the texts described California women as ‘remarkably fecund’ and frequently commented that families were exceptionally large, with women bearing twelve, fifteen, and twenty children.” These stereotypical narratives provided a foundation on which most of the history of Mexican California is written. However, the research of Castañeda and others has dispelled these common mischaracterizations, suggesting that there was significant regional variation in the size of Spanish-Mexican California families, many of which had much smaller numbers of children than noted in founding texts.

Accounts of the reproduction of women of Mexican origin in the United States continued into the twentieth century. For example, in 1929 Samuel J. Holmes, a University of California professor, posed a foreboding question in an article entitled “Perils of the Mexican Invasion,” published in the North American Review: “At a recent state fair in Sacramento, California, when prizes were offered for the largest families, the first prize went to a Mexican family with sixteen children…. This excessive fecundity is of course exceptional, but it is indicative of the breeding habits of this class of our population. Is it not evident, then, that the Mexican invasion is bound to have far-reaching effects upon our national life?” Concerns about a possible “Mexican invasion” of the United States are clearly expressed here, with particular speculation about the resulting cultural effects on the nation.

From the beginning of the century into the early 1940s, growing nativist sentiment blamed Mexican immigrants for societies’ ills and commonly bemoaned their fertility. In a 1929 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, the editor offered his opinion under the heading “The Mexican Conquest”: “The very high Mexican birth rate tends to depress still further the low white birth rate. Thus a race problem of the greatest magnitude is being allowed to develop for future generations to regret and in spite of the fact that the Mexican Indian is considered a most undesirable ethnic stock for the melting pot.”

This concern about the fertility of Mexican women was wholeheartedly adopted by those associated with eugenic efforts. Sociologist David Montejano wrote:

The outcry about social decay reached near-hysterical levels. Eugenicists pointed out with alarm that Mexicans were not only intellectually inferior—they were also quite “fecund.” Imaginative calculations were formulated to drive home the point. C. M. Goethe, president of the Immigrant Study Commission, speaking of a Los Angeles Mexican with thirty-three children, figured that “it would take 14,641 American fathers…at a three-child rate, to equal the descendants of this one Mexican father four generations hence.”

Goethe, a Sacramento realtor, wrote in 1935, “It is this high birthrate that makes Mexican peon immigration such a menace. Peons multiply like rabbits.” The social panic that eugenicists instigated often incited public outcries to deport Mexicans (immigrant or not); at times their messages were informed by germ theories and hereditarianism.

Alternatively, proponents of the Americanist agenda (1915-1929) believed that efforts should be made to assimilate the Mexican population in the United States. A growing body of literature has shown that these efforts primarily focused on the assimilation of Mexican immigrant women and their children into American culture. Historian George Sánchez has noted that for Americanists, motherhood represented “the juncture at which the Mexican immigrant women’s potential role in Americanization was most highly valued.” Ideas about fertility, reproduction, and motherhood all gained significant racial meaning within the process of Americanization, as female Mexican immigrants were believed to be the bearers and sharers of culture.

In her study of the Houchen Settlement, a “Christian Americanization” program run in El Paso, Texas, from 1920 to 1960, historian Vicki Ruiz argues that this and other groups like it paid particular attention to expectant mothers. Millie Rockford, who worked at the settlement, shared the logic behind this approach with Ruiz: “If we can teach her [the mother to be] the modern methods of cooking and preparing foods and simple hygiene habits for herself and her family, we have gained a stride.”

In some cases Americanization policies bore important implications for the birth control practices of Mexican immigrant women. Americanists attempted to inculcate Anglo ideals of family planning and family size into the women’s values in hopes of ultimately changing behavior as well. Efforts to transform the reproductive ideas and behavior of recent immigrants were fueled by nativist and Americanist fears of race suicide. According to Sánchez, “the nativists wanted to control Mexican population growth for fear of a ‘greaser invasion,’ while Americanists viewed unrestricted population growth as a vestige of Old World ways that would have to be abandoned in a modern industrial world.” Regardless of their motivations, both nativists and Americanists centered their efforts on the reproduction of Mexican immigrant women.

More recently, social science literature on Mexican American women provides an acute example of these racializing images. Prevalent among depictions of Mexican-origin women in this body of research are assumptions that they are solely defined by their capacity to bear children. In a 1982 review of such representations in the extant social scientific literature, Sally Andrade wrote, “An exaggerated ‘super-mother’ figure emerges from a summary of the above impressions about Mexican American women: the unceasingly self-sacrificing, dedicated, ever-fertile woman totally without aspiration for self or initiative to do other than reproduce.”

While dissimilar to the ideological constructs that shape the reproductive context for African American women, images of Mexican women as overly identified mothers are also embedded in a framework of racial domination. One important component of the circumvention of Mexican women’s motherhood is the social construction of their hyper-fertility. Chicana feminist scholars have challenged these prevailing notions, showing that not only are these women complex in their identification as mothers, but that they are sexual beings who have diverse opinions regarding reproductive matters. Such efforts to deconstruct existing racist discourse and contribute to more accurate representations and analyses of the reproduction of women of Mexican origin are deliberately part of a Chicana feminist project. As Aida Hurtado explains, “Chicana feminisms proclaim that creating and controlling their own discourse are essential to decolonization. Passive silence has been the enemy that allowed others to construct who Chicanas are, what they can and cannot do, and what they are capable of becoming.”

While scholars demonstrate the complex construction of racializing images and ideologies central to the reproductive control of African American and women of Mexican origin, less obvious are the ways that these images impact women’s lives. I argue that beyond serving as key components of a “generalized ideology of domination,” by which the oppression of women of color is justified, these notions are often manifested in social institutions and actors that construct individual experience. In this volume, I advance such an examination by considering both the discursive dimensions of fertility and reproduction as they pertain to women of Mexican origin and their circulation in policy and public attitudes—or rather, how these social constructions work.

Throughout the following chapters I explore ideas about Mexican-origin women’s fertility in public discourse, assess the reasons for their deployment, and grapple with the relationship between “ideas” about fertility and the actual abuses enacted on the bodies of Mexican-origin women, including forced sterilization. I examine multiple forms of data (including written texts, oral statements, and other documents gathered through archival research) that construct social knowledge about Mexican-origin women’s fertility. I empirically ground our notions of Mexican-origin women as “breeders” in historical context, and explore the implications of these ideas in the discursive practices of various social actors.

defending our water from fracking

The Center for Environmental Health links fracking to miscarriage, as well as to impaired learning and impaired intellectual ability, in children who are exposed to the air and water near fracking wells.


ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson just became the highest-profile anti-fracking activist in the world.
Even though he is the CEO of one of the largest fracking companies in the world, Tillerson is suing to block a fracking development near his Texas horse ranch because it would create a “noise nuisance and traffic hazards.”1 2

The situation is rich with irony, but the truth is that Rex Tillerson is right: He shouldn’t have to cope with the horrendous local impacts of fracking. Nobody should. And as the CEO of America’s largest natural gas producer, he has tremendous power to protect communities across the country from fracking.
Tell ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson: Fight fracking everywhere, not just in your backyard. Click here to sign the petition automatically.
Tillerson’s lawsuit concerns a water tower near his property which, if built, would supply nearby fracking operations. Tillerson and his neighbors are suing to block the construction of the tower, arguing that the presence of heavy trucks hauling water to fracking sites would devalue their properties.3
Tillerson’s ranch is in Bartonville, in Denton County right outside of Forth Worth, on top of the infamous Barnett shale. Fracking operations in North Texas’, many of them owned by ExxonMobil, have had devastating effects on the health and safety of Tillerson’s neighbors. It’s no surprise, then, that Tillerson isn’t the only Texan fighting to protect his home from fracking.
In the city of Denton, where some fracked wells are less than 200 feet from suburban homes, residents are organizing to place a fracking ban on the city’s ballot.4 5 Dallas residents passed a de facto ban on fracking, preventing XTO, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, from fracking in the city limits.6 Hundreds of North Texas residents have stormed Texas Railroad Commission hearings to demand that the commission shut down fracking wastewater injection wells that residents believe are causing earthquakes.7
But instead of using his considerable wealth and political influence to help his neighbors fight fracking, Tillerson has vocally backed fracking — unless, of course, it might impact the market value of his multimillion-dollar horse ranch. Tillerson’s hypocrisy is truly shameful. And the best way to call it out is to admit that he’s right: Not even Rex Tillerson deserves to be fracked.
Tell ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson: Fight fracking everywhere, not just in your backyard. Click here to sign the petition automatically.
Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Automatically add your name:
Sign the petition ►
1. Rebecca Leber, “Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking Project Because It Will Affect His Property Values,” ThinkProgress, February 21, 2014
2. Amy Silverstein, “Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is Suing to Stop a Fracking Development Outside Dallas,” Dallas Observer, February 21, 2014
3. Daniel Gilbert, “Exxon CEO Joins Suit Citing Fracking Concerns,” Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2014
4. Julie Dermansky, “Welcome to Gasland: Denton, Texas Residents Face Fracking Impacts From EagleRidge Energy,” DeSmogBlog, December 5, 2013
5. Denton Drilling Awareness Group 6. Andrew Breiner, “Did Dallas Just Ban Fracking?” ThinkProgress, December 5, 2013
7. Nicholas Sakelaris, “Railroad commission will not halt injection wells in Azle area,” Dallas Business Journal, January 21, 2014


A dangerous new Coast Guard policy would allow the fracking industry to ship millions of gallons of toxic and radioactive waste from Pennsylvania and West Virginia down the Ohio River to Ohio and down the Mississippi to Texas and Louisiana, where it would likely be disposed of in earthquake-causing injection wells.1 2 3
A barge accident could spill dangerous wastewater directly into these rivers, which provide drinking water for millions. Further, by making it less expensive to dispose of fracking wastewater, the policy would incentivize more fracking.
The Coast Guard is accepting public comments on its policy until November 29. We need to tell the Coast Guard to reverse course on the proposed policy and not put our water at risk to help the fracking industry dump its toxic waste.
Tell the Coast Guard: Don’t open our waterways to radioactive fracking wastewater. Click here to submit a public comment.
Fracking in Pennsylvania and West Virginia produces gargantuan amounts of toxic wastewater — and the fracking industry is running out of places to dump it.4Fracking wastewater contains a slew of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals used during fracking, as well as radioactive material that naturally occurs in shale and returns to the surface with the water and chemicals used for fracking. Conventional wastewater treatment facilities can’t remove many of the toxins in fracking wastewater and, in some cases, they even make it more dangerous!5
But despite the terrifying threat of a major spill, the Coast Guard has refused to conduct a rigorous, comprehensive environmental review, instead baselessly declaring that it doesn’t expect the policy to have any substantial environmental impact. The Coast Guard even plans to allow the fracking industry to keep secret the toxic chemicals in its wastewater — making it dramatically harder to safely contain and clean up a spill if it occurs.
Even if the wastewater gets to its intended destination without spilling, it still poses a major threat to communities that will become a dumping ground for fracking waste. Wastewater injection wells can cause dangerous earthquakes and drinking water contamination.6 7
Activists across the country are waging pitched battles to shut down the fracking industry. The Coast Guard shouldn’t help the fracking industry contaminate our water, pollute our air, and accelerate climate change by opening our rivers to toxic fracking waste.
Tell the Coast Guard: Don’t open America’s waterways to radioactive fracking wastewater. Click here to submit a public comment.
Thanks for fighting fracking.
Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Take action now ►
1. Sharon Kelly, “Coast Guard Proposal to Allow Barges to Haul Fracking Wastewater Draws Fire From Environmentalists,” DeSmogBlog, November 9, 2013
2. Mike Ludwig, “Coast Guard Moves to Approve Barging of Hazardous Fracking Waste on Major Rivers,” TruthOut, November 13, 2013
3. Emily DeMarco, “U.S. Coast Guard publishes proposed policy on moving frack wastewater by barge,” PublicSource, November 1, 2013
4. Bob Downing, “Pennsylvania drilling wastes might overwhelm Ohio injection wells,” Akron Beacon Journal, January 23, 2013
5. Bill Chameides, “Fracking Water: It’s Just So Hard to Clean,” National Geographic, October 4, 2013
6. Abrahm Lustgarten, “Injection Wells: The Poison Beneath Us,” ProPublica, June 21, 2012
7. Ryan Grenoble, “Oklahoma ‘Earthquake Swarm’ May Be Linked Wastewater Disposal From Fracking,” Huffington Post, October 24, 2013


Climate Activist—

Protect our national treasures from substandard oil and gas operations.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted last night to pass the so-called “Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act” (HR 2728), a bill that would block federal environmental standards of hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.

A companion bill has been distributed in the Senate by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.

I’m not going to sugarcoat it—this is a terrible idea. At a time when, with your support and activism, we’ve been working so hard across the country to protect communities by establishing tougher environmental and public health standards on the natural gas industry, this bill would put the air, water, and wildlife on federal lands at grave risk from substandard oil and gas operations.

It is crazy for Congress to strip the federal government of any right to take action to protect our public lands. These special places don’t belong to the oil and gas companies—they belong to all of us and to future generations of Americans. And we must stand together to protect them.

When we last wrote to you about the House bill a little more than a week ago, 27,678 of you took action by sending emails to your U.S. Representatives. Thank you for speaking out against this outrageous bill.

Now, I’d like to ask you to take action again—this time by helping us stop this foolishness in the Senate.

Please email your Senators today to oppose the Hatch bill. Tell your Senators we need to work together to promote stronger standards on the natural gas industry to protect our communities and our natural environment. The last thing we should be doing is gutting the protections we already have.

Please take action today.

Jim MarstonThank you for your standing with us,
JimMarstonSignature
Jim Marston
Vice President, US Climate and Energy


Several years ago, gas companies set up fracking operations near the Hallowich family farm in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Soon after, the Hallowiches started experiencing health problems like nosebleeds, sore throats, and unexplained headaches. They were forced to abandon their home and to sue the gas companies, eventually reaching a settlement that includes a standard gag order.
But in an unprecedented move, the gas companies insisted the gag order extend to the Hallowiches’ children, age 7 and 10 years old at the time, legally barring them from talking about what happened to them — and fracking — forever.
As a parent, I am outraged that these dirty fracking companies have stooped to a new low by going after children. That’s why I started my own campaign on CREDO Mobilize that allows activists to start their own petitions. My petition, which is to Range Resources, Mark West Energy Partners, and Williams Gas, asks the following:

Stop silencing children. Take immediate legal action to remove the Hallowich children from the gag order placed on their family, and ensure your company does not include children in any future gag orders related to fracking.

The Hallowich children suffered unexplained illnesses and were forced to move from their childhood home. They will be processing these traumatic experiences for the rest of their lives. Children should not be forced by fossil fuel corporations to remain silent about issues that affect their health and well-being.
The Hallowiches’ story is just the latest example of how fracking and other extreme energy extraction are affecting families across the country. Families are battling air and water contamination — some people have even been able to light their tap water on fire. And every day we see more news of droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather fueled by climate change, caused by carbon pollution from projects like these. Far too often, it’s children who bear the brunt.
When pressed by the media, Range Resources Corporation, one of the companies involved in the lawsuit, told reporters it will not enforce the application of the gag order if the children decide to speak out. But, the family’s lawyer says the gag order, as currently written, could land the kids in legal trouble if they talk publicly about what happened to them — or the impacts of fracking — in the future. In order to protect the Hallowich kids, all three of the companies involved must take the legal steps necessary to remove the children from the gag order.
Will you join me and add your name to my petition telling Range Resources, Mark West Energy Partners, and Williams Gas to legally remove the children from the gag order — and commit to never go after kids again?
Thank you for your support.
Corinne Ball


September 5, 2013

Wow. Last week, CREDO and 275 allied organizations delivered more than 600,000 public comments—including yours and more than 120,000 others from CREDO activists—telling the Obama administration to ban fracking on federal lands.
You may not have known it when you submitted your comment (I certainly didn’t!), but you were participating in what may be the single largest display of opposition to fracking ever to take place in the United States.
This huge push to tell President Obama not to frack America couldn’t come at a more important time. Since he unveiled his Climate Action Plan, President Obama has bravely spoken out about the need to confront climate change. But, as admirable as many parts of his plan are, President Obama has continued to endorse fracking for oil and gas as part of his Climate Action Plan, even though fracking is a major threat to the climate and to countless American communities.
We don’t know how the Obama administration will respond to our comments. What we do know is that what has worked so far to stop fracking is relentless grassroots pressure.
In the last few years, grassroots activists from New York to California have waged and won campaigns to protect their communities from fracking. The hundreds of thousands of comments we delivered to President Obama are the direct result of that local and statewide organizing, which has drawn huge numbers of ordinary people into the anti-fracking movement.
We need to keep building momentum to ban fracking at the local level if we want to ever see change in Washington, D.C. And there’s an easy way to do it. CREDO recently launched CREDO Mobilize, which allows activists like you to start petitions to make progressive change in your community. Already, dozens of local campaigns have been started to ban fracking.
Click here to find and sign the petition to ban fracking where you live. Or if one hasn’t been started where you live, start your own. We’ll support you every step of the way and, if your petition takes off, we’ll send it to other CREDO activists to help you get more signatures.
If you’re starting your own petition, the more local your petition is the better. For example, it’s often easier to pressure your city council to act than it is to pressure your governor. Here are a few ideas to get you thinking:

  • Tell your local elected officials to ban fracking in your city or county.
  • Tell your state legislator or your member of Congress to publicly endorse a ban on fracking.
  • Start a petition opposing a proposed fracking infrastructure project—a pipeline, a compressor station, a natural gas power plant, water withdrawal permits, a silica sand mine, a wastewater injection well, etc.

We have a hard fight ahead of us and the way forward won’t always be clear. The fracking industry has an awful lot of money and influence, and many of the most powerful people in the country—including President Obama—continue to claim that fracking is necessary.
But, as last week’s comment delivery shows, there are also an awful lot of us fighting to stop the fracking industry from poisoning our water and air. And, as the successful fights to keep fracking out of New York, Maryland, and dozens of communities on the frontlines of the fracking boom show, we are increasingly winning the fights we pick.
Thank you for everything you do.
Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets


The Environmental Protection Agency released a progress report Friday that reiterated its support for increasing natural gas development in the United States.

“As the administration and EPA has made clear, natural gas has a central role to play in our energy future,” the agency said in a press release. “The administration continues to work to expand production of this important domestic resource safely and responsibly.” 

EPA outlined several steps it’s taking to assess the impacts fracking — short for hydraulic fracturing — has on the nation’s water supply, as directed by Congress in 2009.
Steps include:
— Analyzing existing data from natural gas companies on chemicals and practices used
— Modeling how discharging waste might impact the water
— Lab testing on water discharge
— Testing fracking chemicals for toxicity
— Testing groundwater in five regions near drilling activity
As expected, the study contained no new data or conclusions. The final results are not expected until late 2014.
Related: World’s 10 most expensive energy projects 

 
Some see the lack of data or negative comments in Friday’s progress report as a positive for the industry.
“It signals that the Obama administration has no real appetite for additional federal regulations until 2014 at the earliest,” said Nitzan Goldberger, a natural gas analyst at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy. “That’s good news for the oil and gas guys.”
The Obama administration has tightened some rules around fracking, but for the most part has left regulation up to the states.
Fracking involves injecting massive amounts of water, sand and some chemicals deep underground in a bid to crack shale rock and ease the flow of oil and natural gas.
The process has unleashed an energy boom in the United States, creating thousands of jobs, driving down the price of oil and natural gas and cutting energy imports to levels not seen in decades.
But it’s also raised serious concerns over its effects on the environment, including air pollution from trucks and wells, its links to earthquakes and fears that it is contaminating drinking water.
For environmentalists, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives.


Dear Friend,

Across the country, the risky method of gas drilling known as “fracking” is causing polluted air, explosions, earthquakes and even flammable tap water.

But incredibly, as frackers rush to expand the practice, it remains totally unregulated by federal health and safety officials.

The Obama Administration has begun the process of passing some rules, but it’s clear they are bowing to pressure from the gas industry at every turn.

Last week, the Department of Interior released a draft rule to regulate fracking on federal lands, and like a number of opportunities before it, the Obama Administration caved to the gas industry to allowing major loopholes that fail to protect us from the dangers of fracking. The agency is now accepting comments on the rule, and we need to urge them to protect public land, water and health — not the gas industry.

I just sent a message urging the Department of Interior to protect our water — not the gas industry. Join me and add your name here.


The Obama Administration has begun the process of passing some rules, but it’s clear they are bowing to pressure from the gas industry at every turn.
You know that when American Petroleum Industry president Jack Gerard is crowing about how closely the administration is listening to the natural gas industry, and a lobbyist from the American Chemistry Council says “It took a while for the administration to realize the role it could play…What we’ve seen is an evolution in thinking,” we are in trouble.2
But after months of pressure from industry3 the latest Interior rule represents another in a string of recent concessions by the Obama Administration, including weakening a draft rule to reduce air pollution from fracking, refusing to take action to ban diesel fuel from fracking fluid, and even downplaying EPA studies which found water contamination from fracking in Pennsylvania and Wyoming.
Fracking, involves pumping millions of gallons of water and a largely secret mix of toxic chemicals, deep underground at high pressure, to literally fracture the rock and release trapped pockets of natural gas.
One fifth of all fracking happens on federal lands, so the Interior Department rule could be an opportunity for the administration to fill the void for strong national standards to at least force companies to disclose the toxic chemicals they are pumping through our groundwater, and set strong standards for safe disposal of the fracking fluid.
But the rule fails to do even that — and we need to urge the Department of Interior to substantially strengthen it.
Rather than set strong standards for chemical disclosure and water treatment, the new rule opens up key loopholes on both.4
This allows gas drillers to keep secret until after they drill the toxic mix of chemicals in their fracking fluid — making it far easier for them to avoid accountability in cases of water contamination.
Additionally, the rule continues to allow dangerous open evaporation pits drillers use to dispose of the huge volumes of toxic fracking wastewater that is recovered after fracking. The open chemical mixture goes airborne, unleashing toxic air pollution in the surrounding area. These pits can also leak this toxic fluid into land and water, and pose a major spill risk from floods or storms.
As the gas industry rapidly scrambles to expand fracking all over the country, it isn’t waiting for states or the federal government to adequately fill the regulatory void that was created when Dick Cheney exempted fracking from federal regulation in his 2005 energy bill.
It is clear that the Obama Administration has been hearing from the gas industry. Now they need to hear from us too — there is no time to waste to pass strong rules to protect us from the substantial dangers posed by natural gas fracking.
Thank you for defending our water from fracking.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

The Center for Environmental Health links fracking to miscarriage, as well as to impaired learning and impaired intellectual ability, in children who are exposed to the air and water near fracking wells.


ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson just became the highest-profile anti-fracking activist in the world.
Even though he is the CEO of one of the largest fracking companies in the world, Tillerson is suing to block a fracking development near his Texas horse ranch because it would create a “noise nuisance and traffic hazards.”1 2

The situation is rich with irony, but the truth is that Rex Tillerson is right: He shouldn’t have to cope with the horrendous local impacts of fracking. Nobody should. And as the CEO of America’s largest natural gas producer, he has tremendous power to protect communities across the country from fracking.
Tell ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson: Fight fracking everywhere, not just in your backyard. Click here to sign the petition automatically.
Tillerson’s lawsuit concerns a water tower near his property which, if built, would supply nearby fracking operations. Tillerson and his neighbors are suing to block the construction of the tower, arguing that the presence of heavy trucks hauling water to fracking sites would devalue their properties.3
Tillerson’s ranch is in Bartonville, in Denton County right outside of Forth Worth, on top of the infamous Barnett shale. Fracking operations in North Texas’, many of them owned by ExxonMobil, have had devastating effects on the health and safety of Tillerson’s neighbors. It’s no surprise, then, that Tillerson isn’t the only Texan fighting to protect his home from fracking.
In the city of Denton, where some fracked wells are less than 200 feet from suburban homes, residents are organizing to place a fracking ban on the city’s ballot.4 5 Dallas residents passed a de facto ban on fracking, preventing XTO, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, from fracking in the city limits.6 Hundreds of North Texas residents have stormed Texas Railroad Commission hearings to demand that the commission shut down fracking wastewater injection wells that residents believe are causing earthquakes.7
But instead of using his considerable wealth and political influence to help his neighbors fight fracking, Tillerson has vocally backed fracking — unless, of course, it might impact the market value of his multimillion-dollar horse ranch. Tillerson’s hypocrisy is truly shameful. And the best way to call it out is to admit that he’s right: Not even Rex Tillerson deserves to be fracked.
Tell ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson: Fight fracking everywhere, not just in your backyard. Click here to sign the petition automatically.
Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Automatically add your name:
Sign the petition ?
1. Rebecca Leber, “Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking Project Because It Will Affect His Property Values,” ThinkProgress, February 21, 2014
2. Amy Silverstein, “Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is Suing to Stop a Fracking Development Outside Dallas,” Dallas Observer, February 21, 2014
3. Daniel Gilbert, “Exxon CEO Joins Suit Citing Fracking Concerns,” Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2014
4. Julie Dermansky, “Welcome to Gasland: Denton, Texas Residents Face Fracking Impacts From EagleRidge Energy,” DeSmogBlog, December 5, 2013
5. Denton Drilling Awareness Group 6. Andrew Breiner, “Did Dallas Just Ban Fracking?” ThinkProgress, December 5, 2013
7. Nicholas Sakelaris, “Railroad commission will not halt injection wells in Azle area,” Dallas Business Journal, January 21, 2014


A dangerous new Coast Guard policy would allow the fracking industry to ship millions of gallons of toxic and radioactive waste from Pennsylvania and West Virginia down the Ohio River to Ohio and down the Mississippi to Texas and Louisiana, where it would likely be disposed of in earthquake-causing injection wells.1 2 3
A barge accident could spill dangerous wastewater directly into these rivers, which provide drinking water for millions. Further, by making it less expensive to dispose of fracking wastewater, the policy would incentivize more fracking.
The Coast Guard is accepting public comments on its policy until November 29. We need to tell the Coast Guard to reverse course on the proposed policy and not put our water at risk to help the fracking industry dump its toxic waste.
Tell the Coast Guard: Don’t open our waterways to radioactive fracking wastewater. Click here to submit a public comment.
Fracking in Pennsylvania and West Virginia produces gargantuan amounts of toxic wastewater — and the fracking industry is running out of places to dump it.4 Fracking wastewater contains a slew of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals used during fracking, as well as radioactive material that naturally occurs in shale and returns to the surface with the water and chemicals used for fracking. Conventional wastewater treatment facilities can’t remove many of the toxins in fracking wastewater and, in some cases, they even make it more dangerous!5
But despite the terrifying threat of a major spill, the Coast Guard has refused to conduct a rigorous, comprehensive environmental review, instead baselessly declaring that it doesn’t expect the policy to have any substantial environmental impact. The Coast Guard even plans to allow the fracking industry to keep secret the toxic chemicals in its wastewater — making it dramatically harder to safely contain and clean up a spill if it occurs.
Even if the wastewater gets to its intended destination without spilling, it still poses a major threat to communities that will become a dumping ground for fracking waste. Wastewater injection wells can cause dangerous earthquakes and drinking water contamination.6 7
Activists across the country are waging pitched battles to shut down the fracking industry. The Coast Guard shouldn’t help the fracking industry contaminate our water, pollute our air, and accelerate climate change by opening our rivers to toxic fracking waste.
Tell the Coast Guard: Don’t open America’s waterways to radioactive fracking wastewater. Click here to submit a public comment.
Thanks for fighting fracking.
Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Take action now ?
1. Sharon Kelly, “Coast Guard Proposal to Allow Barges to Haul Fracking Wastewater Draws Fire From Environmentalists,” DeSmogBlog, November 9, 2013
2. Mike Ludwig, “Coast Guard Moves to Approve Barging of Hazardous Fracking Waste on Major Rivers,” TruthOut, November 13, 2013
3. Emily DeMarco, “U.S. Coast Guard publishes proposed policy on moving frack wastewater by barge,” PublicSource, November 1, 2013
4. Bob Downing, “Pennsylvania drilling wastes might overwhelm Ohio injection wells,” Akron Beacon Journal, January 23, 2013
5. Bill Chameides, “Fracking Water: It’s Just So Hard to Clean,” National Geographic, October 4, 2013
6. Abrahm Lustgarten, “Injection Wells: The Poison Beneath Us,” ProPublica, June 21, 2012
7. Ryan Grenoble, “Oklahoma ‘Earthquake Swarm’ May Be Linked Wastewater Disposal From Fracking,” Huffington Post, October 24, 2013


Climate Activist—

Protect our national treasures from substandard oil and gas operations.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted last night to pass the so-called “Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act” (HR 2728), a bill that would block federal environmental standards of hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.

A companion bill has been distributed in the Senate by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.

I’m not going to sugarcoat it—this is a terrible idea. At a time when, with your support and activism, we’ve been working so hard across the country to protect communities by establishing tougher environmental and public health standards on the natural gas industry, this bill would put the air, water, and wildlife on federal lands at grave risk from substandard oil and gas operations.

It is crazy for Congress to strip the federal government of any right to take action to protect our public lands. These special places don’t belong to the oil and gas companies—they belong to all of us and to future generations of Americans. And we must stand together to protect them.

When we last wrote to you about the House bill a little more than a week ago, 27,678 of you took action by sending emails to your U.S. Representatives. Thank you for speaking out against this outrageous bill.

Now, I’d like to ask you to take action again—this time by helping us stop this foolishness in the Senate.

Please email your Senators today to oppose the Hatch bill. Tell your Senators we need to work together to promote stronger standards on the natural gas industry to protect our communities and our natural environment. The last thing we should be doing is gutting the protections we already have.

Please take action today.

Jim MarstonThank you for your standing with us,
JimMarstonSignature
Jim Marston
Vice President, US Climate and Energy


Several years ago, gas companies set up fracking operations near the Hallowich family farm in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Soon after, the Hallowiches started experiencing health problems like nosebleeds, sore throats, and unexplained headaches. They were forced to abandon their home and to sue the gas companies, eventually reaching a settlement that includes a standard gag order.
But in an unprecedented move, the gas companies insisted the gag order extend to the Hallowiches’ children, age 7 and 10 years old at the time, legally barring them from talking about what happened to them — and fracking — forever.
As a parent, I am outraged that these dirty fracking companies have stooped to a new low by going after children. That’s why I started my own campaign on CREDO Mobilize that allows activists to start their own petitions. My petition, which is to Range Resources, Mark West Energy Partners, and Williams Gas, asks the following:

Stop silencing children. Take immediate legal action to remove the Hallowich children from the gag order placed on their family, and ensure your company does not include children in any future gag orders related to fracking.

The Hallowich children suffered unexplained illnesses and were forced to move from their childhood home. They will be processing these traumatic experiences for the rest of their lives. Children should not be forced by fossil fuel corporations to remain silent about issues that affect their health and well-being.
The Hallowiches’ story is just the latest example of how fracking and other extreme energy extraction are affecting families across the country. Families are battling air and water contamination — some people have even been able to light their tap water on fire. And every day we see more news of droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather fueled by climate change, caused by carbon pollution from projects like these. Far too often, it’s children who bear the brunt.
When pressed by the media, Range Resources Corporation, one of the companies involved in the lawsuit, told reporters it will not enforce the application of the gag order if the children decide to speak out. But, the family’s lawyer says the gag order, as currently written, could land the kids in legal trouble if they talk publicly about what happened to them — or the impacts of fracking — in the future. In order to protect the Hallowich kids, all three of the companies involved must take the legal steps necessary to remove the children from the gag order.
Will you join me and add your name to my petition telling Range Resources, Mark West Energy Partners, and Williams Gas to legally remove the children from the gag order — and commit to never go after kids again?
Thank you for your support.
Corinne Ball


September 5, 2013

Wow. Last week, CREDO and 275 allied organizations delivered more than 600,000 public comments—including yours and more than 120,000 others from CREDO activists—telling the Obama administration to ban fracking on federal lands.
You may not have known it when you submitted your comment (I certainly didn’t!), but you were participating in what may be the single largest display of opposition to fracking ever to take place in the United States.
This huge push to tell President Obama not to frack America couldn’t come at a more important time. Since he unveiled his Climate Action Plan, President Obama has bravely spoken out about the need to confront climate change. But, as admirable as many parts of his plan are, President Obama has continued to endorse fracking for oil and gas as part of his Climate Action Plan, even though fracking is a major threat to the climate and to countless American communities.
We don’t know how the Obama administration will respond to our comments. What we do know is that what has worked so far to stop fracking is relentless grassroots pressure.
In the last few years, grassroots activists from New York to California have waged and won campaigns to protect their communities from fracking. The hundreds of thousands of comments we delivered to President Obama are the direct result of that local and statewide organizing, which has drawn huge numbers of ordinary people into the anti-fracking movement.
We need to keep building momentum to ban fracking at the local level if we want to ever see change in Washington, D.C. And there’s an easy way to do it. CREDO recently launched CREDO Mobilize, which allows activists like you to start petitions to make progressive change in your community. Already, dozens of local campaigns have been started to ban fracking.
Click here to find and sign the petition to ban fracking where you live. Or if one hasn’t been started where you live, start your own. We’ll support you every step of the way and, if your petition takes off, we’ll send it to other CREDO activists to help you get more signatures.
If you’re starting your own petition, the more local your petition is the better. For example, it’s often easier to pressure your city council to act than it is to pressure your governor. Here are a few ideas to get you thinking:

  • Tell your local elected officials to ban fracking in your city or county.
  • Tell your state legislator or your member of Congress to publicly endorse a ban on fracking.
  • Start a petition opposing a proposed fracking infrastructure project—a pipeline, a compressor station, a natural gas power plant, water withdrawal permits, a silica sand mine, a wastewater injection well, etc.

We have a hard fight ahead of us and the way forward won’t always be clear. The fracking industry has an awful lot of money and influence, and many of the most powerful people in the country—including President Obama—continue to claim that fracking is necessary.
But, as last week’s comment delivery shows, there are also an awful lot of us fighting to stop the fracking industry from poisoning our water and air. And, as the successful fights to keep fracking out of New York, Maryland, and dozens of communities on the frontlines of the fracking boom show, we are increasingly winning the fights we pick.
Thank you for everything you do.
Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets


The Environmental Protection Agency released a progress report Friday that reiterated its support for increasing natural gas development in the United States.

“As the administration and EPA has made clear, natural gas has a central role to play in our energy future,” the agency said in a press release. “The administration continues to work to expand production of this important domestic resource safely and responsibly.” 

EPA outlined several steps it’s taking to assess the impacts fracking — short for hydraulic fracturing — has on the nation’s water supply, as directed by Congress in 2009.
Steps include:
— Analyzing existing data from natural gas companies on chemicals and practices used
— Modeling how discharging waste might impact the water
— Lab testing on water discharge
— Testing fracking chemicals for toxicity
— Testing groundwater in five regions near drilling activity
As expected, the study contained no new data or conclusions. The final results are not expected until late 2014.
Related: World’s 10 most expensive energy projects 

 
Some see the lack of data or negative comments in Friday’s progress report as a positive for the industry.
“It signals that the Obama administration has no real appetite for additional federal regulations until 2014 at the earliest,” said Nitzan Goldberger, a natural gas analyst at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy. “That’s good news for the oil and gas guys.”
The Obama administration has tightened some rules around fracking, but for the most part has left regulation up to the states.
Fracking involves injecting massive amounts of water, sand and some chemicals deep underground in a bid to crack shale rock and ease the flow of oil and natural gas.
The process has unleashed an energy boom in the United States, creating thousands of jobs, driving down the price of oil and natural gas and cutting energy imports to levels not seen in decades.
But it’s also raised serious concerns over its effects on the environment, including air pollution from trucks and wells, its links to earthquakes and fears that it is contaminating drinking water.
For environmentalists, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives.


Dear Friend,

Across the country, the risky method of gas drilling known as “fracking” is causing polluted air, explosions, earthquakes and even flammable tap water.

But incredibly, as frackers rush to expand the practice, it remains totally unregulated by federal health and safety officials.

The Obama Administration has begun the process of passing some rules, but it’s clear they are bowing to pressure from the gas industry at every turn.

Last week, the Department of Interior released a draft rule to regulate fracking on federal lands, and like a number of opportunities before it, the Obama Administration caved to the gas industry to allowing major loopholes that fail to protect us from the dangers of fracking. The agency is now accepting comments on the rule, and we need to urge them to protect public land, water and health — not the gas industry.

I just sent a message urging the Department of Interior to protect our water — not the gas industry. Join me and add your name here.


The Obama Administration has begun the process of passing some rules, but it’s clear they are bowing to pressure from the gas industry at every turn.
You know that when American Petroleum Industry president Jack Gerard is crowing about how closely the administration is listening to the natural gas industry, and a lobbyist from the American Chemistry Council says “It took a while for the administration to realize the role it could play…What we’ve seen is an evolution in thinking,” we are in trouble.2
But after months of pressure from industry3 the latest Interior rule represents another in a string of recent concessions by the Obama Administration, including weakening a draft rule to reduce air pollution from fracking, refusing to take action to ban diesel fuel from fracking fluid, and even downplaying EPA studies which found water contamination from fracking in Pennsylvania and Wyoming.
Fracking, involves pumping millions of gallons of water and a largely secret mix of toxic chemicals, deep underground at high pressure, to literally fracture the rock and release trapped pockets of natural gas.
One fifth of all fracking happens on federal lands, so the Interior Department rule could be an opportunity for the administration to fill the void for strong national standards to at least force companies to disclose the toxic chemicals they are pumping through our groundwater, and set strong standards for safe disposal of the fracking fluid.
But the rule fails to do even that — and we need to urge the Department of Interior to substantially strengthen it.
Rather than set strong standards for chemical disclosure and water treatment, the new rule opens up key loopholes on both.4
This allows gas drillers to keep secret until after they drill the toxic mix of chemicals in their fracking fluid — making it far easier for them to avoid accountability in cases of water contamination.
Additionally, the rule continues to allow dangerous open evaporation pits drillers use to dispose of the huge volumes of toxic fracking wastewater that is recovered after fracking. The open chemical mixture goes airborne, unleashing toxic air pollution in the surrounding area. These pits can also leak this toxic fluid into land and water, and pose a major spill risk from floods or storms.
As the gas industry rapidly scrambles to expand fracking all over the country, it isn’t waiting for states or the federal government to adequately fill the regulatory void that was created when Dick Cheney exempted fracking from federal regulation in his 2005 energy bill.
It is clear that the Obama Administration has been hearing from the gas industry. Now they need to hear from us too — there is no time to waste to pass strong rules to protect us from the substantial dangers posed by natural gas fracking.
Thank you for defending our water from fracking.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Man’s Search for Meaning

MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING is a revised and enlarged version of From Death-Camp to Existentialism, which was selected as “Book of the Year” by Colby College, Baker University, Earlham College, Olivet Nazarene College, and St. Mary’sDominican College. Fir…

MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING is a revised and enlarged version of From Death-Camp to Existentialism, which was selected as “Book of the Year” by Colby College, Baker University, Earlham College, Olivet Nazarene College, and St. Mary’s
Dominican College. First published in Austria in 1946, under the title Ein Psycholog erlebt das Konzentrationslager.

Man’s Search for Meaning is a 1946 book by Viktor Frankl chronicling his experiences as an Auschwitz concentration camp inmate during World War II, and describing his psychotherapeutic method, which involved identifying a purpose in life to feel positively about, and then immersively imagining that outcome. According to Frankl, the way a prisoner imagined the future affected his longevity. The book intends to answer the question “How was everyday life in a concentration camp reflected in the mind of the average prisoner?” Part One constitutes Frankl’s analysis of his experiences in the concentration camps, while Part Two introduces his ideas of meaning and his theory called logotherapy.

According to a survey conducted by the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of CongressMan’s Search For Meaning belongs to a list of “the ten most influential books in the United States.”[1] At the time of the author’s death in 1997, the book had sold over 10 million copies and had been translated into 24 languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man’s_Search_for_Meaning

Interview with Dr Viktor Frankl about logotherapy and existencialism

Sefarad

Este video esclarece y muestra la verdadera identificación de los judíos en España y su contribución positiva a la sociedad española ,a su cultura , a su espíritu humanista- La expulsión de los judíos fue un decisión trágica y errónea de los reyes católicos.


Como ejemplo, Monterrey fue fundado por Diego de Montemayor, y Carvajal y de la Cueva, que, según la historia, como tantos otros fueron ejecutados por la Santa Inquisición por hacerse pasar por católicos. A los sefardís se les llamaba marranos por la costumbre judía de no comer cerdo, y de no encender fuego en el Sabbat. La Nueva España, hoy México, en sus inicios fue uno de los lugares preferidos de destino de los sefardís. Los sefardís fueron una tremenda fuerza económica e ideológica pero los Reyes Católicos les dieron el ultimátum de convertirse al catolicismo o ser ejecutados y sus tierras y propiedades confiscadas. Lo más fácil era hacerse pasar por católico pero al seguir observando las costumbres hebreas se delataban. En México estos cripto-judios también sufrieron el despojo de sus bienes y las torturas y muertes más horribles (empalados, ahogados, mutilados, quemados).


YOLANDA MARÍN. 24.03.2014 – 14:43h PST 

Desde hace semanas circula por redes sociales y sitios de Internet una lista de apellidos judíos sefardíes que supuestamente les otorgaría a las personas que los tengan la nacionalidad española de forma automática. La noticia ha despertado curiosidad y esperanza en ciudadanos latinoamericanos que se han visto incluidos en el listado. Pero el Gobierno español ha confirmado a 20minutos que ese documento es falso.  Fuentes del Ministerio de Justicia han asegurado que este documento es apócrifo, ya que en ningún momento ha publicado un listado de apellidos oficial para poder acreditar la nacionalidad española. De hecho, aún ni se puede comenzar a tramitar porque únicamente es un anteproyecto de ley. Lo que sí es cierto es que existen planes para otorgar la nacionalidad española a los judíos sefardíes que reúnan ciertos requisitos. Pero tanto el Gobierno como asociaciones de ese colectivo han desmentido que el solo hecho de detentar alguno de los apellidos de ese listado haga a una persona candidata a esa nacionalidad. El Ministerio de Justicia español recomienda consultar su página web ante cualquier duda, “únicamente será oficial todo lo que salga en esta web”, señalaron.

Ver más en:http://www.20minutos.com/noticia/11970/0/listado-apellidos/judios-sefardies/ciudadania-espanola/#xtor=AD-1&xts=513357


REDACCIÓN SDPNOTICIAS.COM

vie 21 mar 2014 20:18

El Gobierno de España publicó una lista de 5 mil 220 apellidos y nombre judíos que serán reconocidos tras más de 500 años de ser excluidos. Días atrás, el parlamento español comenzó una análisis para devolver la ciudadanía a los descendiente de los judíos expulsados en 1492.

Aquellos que acrediten tener dichos apellidos vivan o no en España, podrán obtener doble nacionalidad. “Aquellos ciudadanos extranjeros sefardíes que prueben dicha condición y su especial vinculación con nuestro país, aunque no tengan residencia legal en España, cualquiera sea su ideología, religión o creencias”, señala el artículo 23 del Código Civil.

A.Abad, Abadía, Abarca, Abastos, Abaunza, Abbot, Abdallá, Abdalah, Abdallah, Abdelnour,Abdo, Abea, Abel, Abela, Abelado, Abella,Abellán, Abendaño, Abou, Abraham, Abrahams, Abrahán, Abrego, Abreu, Abrigo, Abril, Abufelo, Abugadba, Aburto, Acabal, Acebal, Acedo, Acevedo, Acosta, Acuña, Adames, Adamis, Adanaque, Adanis, Adis, Aedo, Agababa, Agámez, Agayón, Agrazal, Agreda, Aguayo, Agudelo, Agüero, Aguiar, Aguilar, Aguilera, Aguiluz, Aguilve, Aguinaga, Aguirre, Agurto,Agustín, Ahuja, Ahumada, Aiello, Aiza, Aizprúa, Aizpurúa, Alache, Alama, Alan, Alani, Alanis, Alanís, Alaniz, Alarcón, Alas, Alavez, Alayón, Alba, Albarello, Albarracín, Albelo, Albenda, Alburola, Alcaíno, Alcanzar, Alcázar, Alcazar, Alcibar, Alcócer, Alcóser, Alcóver, Alcózer, Aldana, Aldaña, Aldapa, Aldecoba, Alderrama, Alegría, Alejos, Alemán, Alexander, Alexandre, Alfaro, Alfonso, Algaba, Alguera, Aliaga, Alicama, Alier, Alizaga, Allan, Allon, Alluín, Almanza, Almanzar, Almanzo, Almaraz, Almazan, Almeida, Almendares, Almendárez, Almendáriz, Almengor, Almonte, Aloisio, Aloma, Alomar, Alonso, Alonzo, Alpírez, Alpízar, Altamirano, Altenor, Alterno, Altino, Altonor, Alva, Alvarado, Alvarenga, Alvares, Álvarez, Alvaro, Alvear, Alverde, Alvergue, Alvir, Alzate, Amado, Amador, Amalla, Amaris, Amaya, Amor, Amora, Amores, Amoros, Ampie, Ampié, Ampiée, Ampiee, Anaya, Anchetta, Anchez, Anchía, Anchieta, Andia, Andino, Andrade, André, Andrés, Andujar, Andújar, Andujo, Angele, Angelini, Anglada, Angulo, Anice, Anjos, Ansorena, Antelo, Antero, Antezana, Antich, Antillón, Antón, Antúnez, Anzora, Aparicio, Apolinar, Apollonio, Aponte, Aquiles, Aquino, Aragón,Aragones, Aragonés, Araica, Arana, Arancibia, Aranda, Arando, Arango, Aranjo, Araque, Arata, Araujo, Araus, Arauz, Araya, Arbaiza, Arballo, Arbelo, Arbizu, Arbizú, Arboleda, Arburola, Arca, Arcarate, Arce, Arceyudh, Arceyut, Arceyuth, Arcia, Arcía, Arciniegas, Ardila, Ardín, Ardón, Ardonnix, Areas, Arellano, Arena, Arenas, Arévalo, Argudo, Arguedas, Argüelles, Argüello, Argueta, Arguijo, Arias, Ariasdes, Arica, Arie, Ariño, Arispe, Arista, Ariza, Arjona, Armada, Armas, Armenta, Armento, Armeras, Armesto, Armijo, Arnáez, Arnau, Arnesto, Anuelo, Arnuero, Arone, Arosemena, Arquín, Arrazola, Arrea, Arredondo, Arreola, Arriaga, Arriagada, Arrieta, Arriola, Arrocha, Arroliga, Arrollo, Arrone, Arrones, Arronés, Arronez, Arronis, Arroniz, Arroyave, Arroyo, Arrubla, Artavia, Arteaga, Artecona, Artiaga, Artiga, Artiles, Artiñano, Artola, Artolozaga, Aruj, Aruizu, Arze, Arzola, Ascante, Ascencio, Asch, Asencio, Asero, Así, Asís, Aspirita, Astacio, Astete, Astorga, Astorquiza, Astúa, Asturias, Asunción, Asusema, Atehortúa, Atein, Atencio, Atensio, Atiensa, Atienza, Augusto, Ávalos, Avelar, Avellán, Avendaño, Ávila, Avilés, Avilez, Ayala, Ayales, Ayara, Ayarza, Aybar, Aycinena, Ayerdis, Aymerich, Azar, Azaria, Asofeifa, Azqueta, Azua, Azúa, Azuar, Azucena, Azul, Azuola, Azurdia.

B. Babb, Babar, Baca, Bacca, Bacigalupo, Badilla, Bado, Báez, Baeza, Baidal, Bairnales, Baizan, Bajarano, Balarezo, Baldares, Balday,Baldelomar, Balderas, Balderrama, Balderramos,Baldí, Baldi, Baldioceda, Baldivia, Baldizón,Balladares, Ballar, Ballard, Ballester, Ballestero,Ballesteros, Ballón, Balma, Balmaceda, Balmacera,Balon, Balser, Baltodano, Banegas, Banet, Banilla, Baños, Bañuelos,
Baquedano, Baquero, Baradín, Baraen, Barahoma, Barahona, Barajas,Baraquiso, Barat, Barba, Barbagallo, Barbagebra, Bárbara, Barbena, Barben,Barberena, Barbosa, Barboza, Barcelas, Barcelata, Barcenas, Barcia, Bardayan,Barguil, Barillas, Barletta, Baro, Barón, Barquedano, Barquero, Barquette, Barra, Barracosa, Barrante, Barrantes, Barraza, Barreda, Barrenechea, Barrera,Barrero, Barreto, Barrias, Barrientos, Barriga, Barrio, Barrionuevo, Barrios,Barroso, Barrot, Barrott, Barrundia, Barsallo, Bart, Bartal, Barteles, Bartels,Barth, Barvas, Baruch, Basadre, Basán, Basilio, Basti, Bastida, Bastos, Bastti,Batalla, Batán, Batista, Batres, Bautista, Bauzid, Baviera, Bayo, Bazán, Bazo,Beatriz, Becancur, Becerra, Becerril, Bedolla, Bedoya, Beeche, Beeché,Beingolea, Beita, Bejarano, Bejos, Bel, Belette, Belgrave, Bellanero, Bellido,Bello, Belloso, Belmonte, Beltrán, Beltre, Benach, Benambourg, Benambugr,Benambur, Benavente, Benavides, Benavídez, Benda, Bendaña, Bendig,Bendij, Benedictis, Beneditt, Benevides, Bengoechea, Benites, Benítez, Benito,Benzón, Berasaluce, Berciano, Berdasco, Berdugo, Berenzón, Bermejo,Bermeo, Bermudes, Bermúdez, Bernadas, Bernal, Bernardo, Bernat, Berrios,Berríos, Berrocal, Berrón, Bertel, Bertrán, Betancort, Bentancourt,Betancourth, Betancur, Betancurt, Beter, Beteta, Bethancourt, Betrano, Better,Biamonte, Binda, Blanco, Blandino, Blando, Blandón, Blau, Blum, Bobadilla,Bodán, Bogán, Bogantes, Bogarín, Bohorguez, Bohorquez, Bojorge, Bolaños,Bolívar, Bonice, Boniche, Bonichi, Bonilla, Borbas, Borbón, Borda, Bordallo,Borge, Borges, Borja, Borjas, Borjes, Borloz, Borras, Borrasé, Borredo,Borrero, Bosque, Botero, Boza, Bran, Bravia, Bravo, Brenes, Breve, Briceño,Brilla, Briones, Brito, Brizeño,Brizuela, Buencamino, Buendía, Bueno, Bueso,Buezo, Buga, Bugarín, Bugat, Bugria, Burgos, Burguera, Burgues, Burillo,Busano, Bustamante, Bustillo, Bustillos, Busto, Bustos, Buzano, Buzeta, Buzo.
C. Caamano, Caamaño, Cabada, Cabadianes, Cabal, Cabalceta, Caballero, Cabana, Cabaña, Cabeza, Cabezas, Cabistán, Cabral, Cabrera, Cabrerizo, Cáceres, Cadenas, Cadet, Cageao,Caicedo, Cairol, Cajas, Cajiao, Cajina, Cala, Calatayud, Calazán, Calcáneo, Caldas, Caldera, Calderón, Calero, Caliva, Calix, Calle, Calleja, Callejas, Callejo, Calles, Calvo, Calzada, Camacho, Camaño, Camarena, Camareno, Camarillo,Cambronero, Camona, Campabadal, Campabadall, Campodónico, Campos, Canales, Canalias, Canas, Candamo, Candelaria, Candelario, Canejo, Canessa, Canet, Canetta, Canizales, Canizález, Canizares, Canno, Cano, Canossa, Cantarero, Cantero, Cantillano, Canto, Cantón, Cañas, Cañizales, Cañizález, Capón, Carabaguias, Carabaguiaz, Caranza, Caravaca, Carazo, Carbalda, Carballo,Carbonell, Carbonero, Carcache, Carcachi, Cárcamo, Carcedo, Carcía, Cárdenas, Cárdenes, Cardona, Cardos, Cardoso, Cardoza, Cardoze, Cares, Carias, Caridad, Carit, Carlos, Carmiol, Carmona, Carnero, Caro, Carpio, Carranza, Carrasco, Carrasquilla, Carreño, Carrera, Carreras, Carrillo, Carrión, Carrizo, Carro, Cartagena, Cartago, Cartín, Carvajal, Carvalho, Carvallo, Casa, Casaca, Casafont, Casal, Casanova, Casañas, Cásares, Casas, Casasnovas, Casasola, Cascante, Casco, Casorla, Cassasola, Cásseres, Castaneda, Castañeda, Castañedas, Castaño, Castañón, Castaños, Castelán, Castellano, Castellanos, Castellón, Casteñeda, Castiblanco, Castilla, Castillo, Castro, Catania, Cateres, Catón, Cavalceta, Cavaller, Cavallo, Cavanillas, Cavazos, Cavero, Cazanga, Ceba, Ceballos, Ceciliano, Cedeño, Cejudo, Celada, Celedón, Celís, Centella, Centeno, Cepeda, Cerceño, Cerda, Cerdas, Cerna, Cernas, Cerón, Cerpas, Cerros, Cervantes, Cervilla, Céspedes, Cevallos, Cevedo, Cevilla, Chabrol, Chacón, Chamarro, Chamorro, Chanquín, Chanta, C 84 Chanto, Chavarría, Chavera, Chaverri, Chaves, Chávez, Chavira, Cheves, Chévez, Chica, Chicaiza, Chicas, Chilquillo, Chinchilla, Chinchillo, Chirino, Chirinos, Chocano, Choza, Cid, Cifuentes, Cintrón, Cisar, Cisne, Cisnero, Cisneros, Cisternas, Claro, Cleves, Cobaleda, Coe, Coello, Coen, Cohen, Coles, Colina, Colindres, Collado, Collina, Colom, Coloma, Colombo, Colomer, Concepción, Concha, Conde, Condega, Condes, Conedo, Conejo, Congosto, Conte, Contreras, Corales, Corao, Cordeiro, Cordero, Cordido, Córdoba, Cordón, Cordonero, Córdova, Cordoze, Corea, Corella, Cornavaca, Cornejo, Corona, Coronado, Coronas, Coronel, Corrales, Correa, Corredera, Corro, Corta, Cortaberría, Cortés, Cortez, Cortinez, Cortissoz, Corvera, Cosio, Cosiol, Cosme, Cossio, Costa, Cotera, Coto, Crespo, Crispín, Crispino, Cruces, Cruz, Cuadra, Cuadrado, Cuan, Cuaresma, Cuarezma, Cuarta, Cubas, Cubenas, Cubero, Cubías, Cubias, Cubilla, Cubillo, Cubillos, Cubria, Cuebas, Cuellar, Cuéllar, Cuello, Cuenca, Cuendis, Cuernavaca, Cuervo, Cuesta, Cueva, Cuevas, Cuevillas, Cunill, Cunillera, Curbelo, Curco, Curdelo.
D. Da Costa, Da Silva, Dacosta, D’Acosta,Dalorso, Dalorzo, Dalsaso, Damaceno, Damito,Daniel, Daniels, Dapuerto, Dapueto,Darce, Darche,Darcia, Darío, Dasadre, Dasilva, Dávalos, David,Dávila, Davis, D’Avola, De Abate, De Aguilar, De Alba, De Alvarado, De Benedictis, De Briones, De Camino, De Castro, De Céspedes, De Espeleta, De Ezpeleta, De Falco, De Faria, De Franco, De Jesús, De Jorge, De Juana, De La Cruz, De La Cuesta,De La Espriella, De La Fuente, De La Garza, De La Guardia, De La Herran, De La Hormaza, De La Jara, De La Mata, De La Nuez, De La O, De La Osa, De La Ossa, De La Paz, De La Peña, De La Rocha, De La Rosa, De La Selva, De La Teja, De La Torre, De La Trava, De La Vega, De Largaespada, De Las Casas, De Las Cuevas, De Las Heras, De Lemos, De León, De Lev, De Lima, De López, De Luz, De Miguel, De Miranda, De Moya, De Odio, De Óleo, De Ona, De Oña, De Paco, De Paredes, De Pass, De Paz, De Pazos, De Pedro, De Pinedo, De Prado, De Rayo, De Sárraga, De Sá, De Trinidad, De Ureña, De Vega, De Yglesias, Del Barco, Del Barrio, Del Bello, Del Busto, Del Carmen, Del Castillo, Del Cid, Del Pilar, Del Pimo, Del Río, Del Risco, Del Socorro,Del Solar, Del Valle, Delatolla, Delgadillo, Delgado, Deliyore, Dellale, Dellanoce, Delso, Delvo, Dengo, Denis, Dennis, Detrinidad, Devanda, Devandas, Devoto, Dias, Díaz, Díez, Díjeres, Díjerez, Dimas, Dinares, Dinarte, Discua, Doblado, Dobles, Dodero, Dalmus, Dalmuz, Domingo, Domínguez, Donado, Donaire, Donato, Doña, Doñas, Donzón, Dorado, Dormos, Dormuz,Doryan, Duar, Duares, Duarte, Duartes, Duenas, Dueñas, Duque, Duque Estrada, Durall, Durán, Durante, Duval, Duvall, Duverrán.
E.Echandi, Echavarría, Echeverri, Echeverría, Eduarte, Egea, Elías, Eligia, Elizalde, Elizonda, Elizondo, Elmaleh, Emanuel, Enrique, Enriques, Enríquez, Eras, Erazo, Escabar, Escalante, Escamilla, Escarré, Escobar, Escobedo, Escocia, Escorriola, Escosia, Escoto, Escovar, Escribano, Escude, Escudero, España, Esparragó, Espelerta, Espeleta, Espinach, Espinal, Espinales, Espinar, Espino, Espinosa, Espinoza, Espitia, Esquivel, Esteban, Esteves, Estévez, Estrada, Estrella.
F.Faba, Fabara, Fabián, Fábrega, Fabregat,Fabres, Facio, Faerrón, Faeth, Faiges, Fait, Faith,Fajardo, Falco, Falcón, Falla, Fallas, Farach, Farah,Fargas, Farias, Farías, Faries, Fariña, Fariñas,Farrach, Farrer, Farrera, Farrier, Fatjo, Fatjó, Faundez, Faune, Fava, Fazio, Fermández, Fermán,Fernandes, Fernández, Fernando, Ferrada, Ferrán, Ferrando, Ferraro,Ferreira,Ferreiro, Ferrer, Ferrero, Ferris, Ferro, Ferros,Fiallos, Fictoria, Fidalgo,Fierro, Figueiredo, Figuer,Figueras, Figueres, Figueroa, Filomena, Fletes,Fletis, Flores, Fonseca, Font, Forero, Formoso, Fornaguera, Fraga,Fraguela,Francés, Frances, Francesa, Francia, Francis,Franco, Fray, Frayle, Freer,Freira, Fresno, Freyre, Frías,Frutos, Fuentes, Fumero, Funes, Funez, Fúnez,Fuscaldo, Fusco.
G. Gabriel, Gadea, Gaete, Gago, Gainza, Gaitán,Galacia, Galagarza, Galán, Galarza, Galaviz, Galba,Galcerán, Galeano, Galeas, Galeno, Galera,Galiana, Galiano, Galindo, Galino, Galiñanes, Gallardo, Gallegas, Gallegos, Gallo, Galo, Galtés,Galván, Gálvez, Galvis, Gamarra, Gamazo, Gambo,Gamboa, Gámez, Garay, Garayar, Garbanzo, Garcés, García, Gardela,Gargollo, Garino, Garita, Garmendia, Garner, Garnier, Garreta, Garrido, Garro,Garrón, Garza, Garzel, Garzón, Garzona, Gaspar, Gateno,Gateño, Gavarrete,Gavilán, Gaviria, Gavosto, Gayoso,Gaytán, Gazel, Gazo, Geoyenaga, Gil,Gillén, Gilles, Giral, Giraldo, Giraldt, Giralt, Giro, Girón, Gladis, Goches,Góchez, Godines, Godínez, Godoy, Goic, Goicoechea, Goicuria, Goldenberg,Golfín, Gomar, Gómez, Gomis, Gondres,Góndrez, Góngora, Gonzaga,Gonzales, González, Gonzalo, Goñi, Gordon, Górgona, Goyenaga, Gracía,Gracias,Gradis, Grajal, Grajales, Grajeda, Grana,Granada, Granados, Granda,Grandoso, Granera, Granizo, Granja, Graña, Gras, Grau, Greco, Greñas,Gridalva, Grigoyen, Grijalba, Grijalda, Grijalva, Grillo, Guadamuz, Guadrón,Guajardo, Guardado, Guardano, Guardia, Guardián, Guardiola, Guarín,Guasch, Gudino, Gudiño, Güel, Güell, Güendel, Güendell, Guerra, Guerrero,Guevara, Guido, Guie, Guier, Guifarro, Guilá, Guillarte, Guillén, Guillermet,Guillermo, Guilles, Güillies, Guillies, Guillis,Guilloch, Guiménez, Guindos,Guitiérrez, Guitta, Guix,Gulubay, Gunera, Guntanis, Gurdián, Gurrero,Gurrola, Gustavino, Gutiérrez, Guzmán.
H.Haba, Habibe, Haenz, Harrah, Hénchoz,Henríquez, Henrriquez, Herdocia, Heredia,Herencia, Heríquez, Hermann, Hermosilla, Hernández, Hernando, Hernánez, Herra, Herradora,Herrán, Herrera, Herrero, Hevia, Hidalgo, Hierro,Hincapié, Hinostroza, Horna, Hornedo, Huerta,Huertas, Huete, Huezo, Hurtado, Hurtecho.
I. Ibáñez, Ibarra, Ibarras, Icaza, Iglesias, Ilama,Incapié, Incer, Incera, Inceras, Inces, Infante,Iracheta, Iraheta, Irastorza, Irias, Iribar, Irigaray,Irola, Isaac, Isaacs, Israel, Ivañez, Izaba, Izaguirre,Izandra, Iznardo, Izquierdo, Izrael, Izurieta
J.Jácamo, Jacobo, Jácome, Jácomo, Jaen,Jáenz, Jara, Jaramillo, Jarquín, Jarrín, Jerano, Jerez,Jiménez, Jimera, Jinesta, Jirón, Joseph, Jovel,Juárez, Junco, Juncos, Jurado.
K. Kaminsky, Klein, Kuadra.
L.La Barca, Labra, Lacarez, Lacayo, Lafuente,Lago, Lagos, Laguardia, Laguna, Lain, Laine,Lainez, Laitano, Lamas, Lamela, Lamicq,Lamugue, Lamuza, Lancho, Lanco, Landazuri,Lández, Lanuza, Lanza, Lanzas, Lapeira, Laporte,Laprade, Lara, Lares, Largaespada, Largo, Larios,Larrabure, Larrad, Larragan,Larragán, Larraguivel, Lasa, Lasantas, Láscares,Láscarez, Láscaris, Lasso, Lastra, Lastreto, Latiff,Latino, Latorraca, Laurito,Laverde, Lázaro, Lázarus, Lázcares, Lazo, Lazzo, L’Calleja, Leal, Leandra,Leandro, Ledezma, Ledo, Leitón, Leiva, Lejarza, Lemmes,Lemos, Lemus,Lemuz, Leñero, León, Lépiz, Levi, Leytón, Leyva,Lezama, Lezana, Lezcano,Lhamas, Lieberman, Lima, Linares, Linarte,Lindo, Lines, Líos, Lira, Lizama,Lizana, Lizano, Lizarme, Llabona, Llach, Llado, Llamazares, Llamosas, Llano,Lanos, Llanten, Llaurado, Llerena, Llibre, Llinas, Llobet, Llobeth,Llorca, Llorella, Llorens, Llorente, Llosent, Lloser, Llovera, Llubere,Loáciga,Loáiciga, Loáisiga, Loaissa, Loaiza, Lobo,Loeb, Loew, Loinaz, Lombardo,Londoño, Lope,Lopes, Lopera, López, Lopezlage, Loprete, Lora, Loredo, Lorente,Lorenz, Lorenzana, Lorenzen, Lorenzo, Loría, Lorío, Lorio, Lorz, Losada,Losilla,Louk, Louzao, Loynaz, Loza, Lozano, Luarca, Lucas, Lucena,Lucero,Lucke, Lugo, Luis, Luján, Luna, Lunaza, Luque, Luquez.
M.Macaya, Macedo, Maceo, Machado, Machín, Machuca, Macia, Macias, Macías, Macís, Macre, Macrea, Madariaga, Maderos, Madinagoitia, Madrano, Madrid, Madriga, Madrigal, Madril, Madriz, Maduro, Magalhaes, Magallón, Magaña, Magdalena, Maguiña, Mahomar, Maikut, Maingot, Mairena, Maisonave, Maita, Majano, Majarres, Malaga, Maldonado, Malé, Malespín, Malestín, Maltés, Maltez, Malvarez, Manavella, Mancheno, Mancia, Mancía, Mandas, Mangaña, Mangas, Mangel, Manjarres, Mans, Mansalvo, Mansilla, Manso, Mantanero, Mantica, Mantilla, Manuel, Manzanal, Manzanares, Manzano, Manzur, Marabiaga, Maradiaga, Marbes, Marbis, Marcenaro, March, Marchena, Marcia, Marcías, Marcillo, Marcos, Mardones, Marenco, Margules, María, Marichal, Marín, Marinero, Marino, Mariñas, Mariño, Marot, Maroto, Marqués, Marquez, Marreco, Marrero, Marroquín, Marsell, Marte, Martell, Martén, Martens, Martí, Martin, Martínez, Martins, Marvez, Mas, Masía, Masís, Maso, Mason, Massuh, Mastache, Mata, Matamoros, Matarrita, Mate, Mateo, Matera, Mateus, Matías, Matos, Mattus, Mattuz, Matul, Matus, Matute, Maurel, Maurer, Mauricio, Mauro, Maynard, Maynaro, Maynart, Mayo, Mayor, Mayorga, Mayorquín, Mayre, Mayrena, Maza, Mazariegos, Mazas, Mazín, Mazón, Mazuque, Mazure, Medal, Mederano, Mederas, Medeiros, Medina, Medinilla, Medoza, Medrano, Meira, Mejía, Mejías, Melara, Meléndez, Melgar, Melgarrejo, Mellado, Melo, Membreño, Mena, Menayo, Menchaca, Mendea, Méndez, Mendiantuba, Mendieta, Mendiola, Mendives, Mendivil, Mendoza, Mendreño, Menéndez, Meneses, Menjibar, Menjivar, Menocal, Meono, Meoño, Merayo, Meraz, Merazo, Merazzo, Mercado, Mercelina, Mercer, Mergarejo, Mérida, Merino, Merizalde, Merlo, Mesa, Mesales, Mesalles, Meseguer, Mesén, Messeguer, M 95 Mestayer, Meszaros, Meza, Michelena, Michelino, Micillo, Miguez, Mijangos, Mijares, Milanés, Milano, Millet, Mina, Minas, Minero,Miño, Miqueo, Miraba, Miralles, Mirambell, Miramontes, Miranda, Miro, Mirquez, Mitja, Mitjavila, Mizrachi, Mojarro, Mojica, Molestina, Molian, Molín, Molina, Molinero, Molleda, Mollinedo, Mollo, Moncada, Mondol, Mondragón, Moneda, Moneiro, Monestel, Monga, Mongalo, Móngalo, Monge, Mongillo, Monguillo, Monjarres, Monjarrez, Monjica, Monserrat, Montagné, Montalbán, Montalbert, Montalto, Montalván, Montalvo, Montana, Montanaro, Montandón, Montano, Montealegre, Montealto, Montecino, Montecinos, Monteil, Montejo, Montenaro, Montenegro, Montero, Monterosa, Monteroza, Monterrey, Monterrosa, Monterroso, Montes, Monterinos, Monteverde, Montiel, Montier, Montoya, Monturiol, Mora, Moraes, Moraga, Morales, Morán, Morazán, Moreira, Morejón, Morena, Moreno, Morera, Moriano, Morice, Morillo, Morín, Moris, Morise, Moro, Morote, Moroto, Morraz, Morúa, Morún, Morux, Morvillo, Moscarella, Moscoa, Moscoso, Mosquera, Motta, Moxi, Moya, Mozquera, Mugica, Muiña, Muir, Mulato, Munera, Mungía, Munguía, Munive, Munizaga, Muñante, Muñiz, Muñoz, Murcia, Murgado, Murgas, Murias, Murillo, Murilo, Muro, Mussap, Mussapp, Mussio, Mustelier, Muxo.
N.Naim, Naira, Nájar,Nájares, Najarro, Nájera, Nájeres, Naranjo, Narvaes, Narváez, Nasralah, Nasso, Navaro, Navarrete, Navarrette, Navarro, Navas, Nayap, Nazario, Nema, Nemar, Neyra, Nieto, Nino, Niño, Noble, Noboa, Noel, Nogebro, Noguera, Nomberto, Nora, Noriega, Norza, Nova, Novales, Novo, Novoa, Nuevo, Nuez, Nunga, Núñez.
O.Obaldía, Obanbo, Obando, Obares, Obellón, Obon, Obrego, Obregón, Ocampo, Ocampos, Ocaña, Ocaño, Ocario, Ochoa, Ocón, Oconitrillo, Ode, Odio, Odir, Odóñez, Odor, Oduber, Oguilve, Ojeda, Okarlo, Okendo, Olarte, Olaso, Olaverri, Olazaba, Olguín, Oliva, Olivar, Olivares, Olivárez, Olivas, Oliver, Olivera, Oliverio, Olivier, Oliviera, Olivo, Oller, Olmeda, Olmedo, Olmo, Olmos, Omacell, Omodeo, Ondoy, Onetto, Oñate, Oñoro, Oporta, Oporto, Oquendo, Ora, Orama, Oramas, Orantes, Ordeñana, Ordoñes, Ordóñez, Orduz, Oreamuno, Oreas, Oreiro, Orella, Orellana, Orfila, Orias, Orios, Orjas, Orjuela, Orlich, Ormasis, Ormeño, Orna, Ornes, Orochena, Orocu, Orosco, Orozco, Ortega, Ortegón, Ortiz, Ortuño, Orve, Osante, Oseda, Osegueda, Osejo, Osequeda, Oses, Osorio, Osorno, Ospina, Ospino, Ossa, Otalvaro, Otárola, Otero, Oto, Otoya, Ovares, Ovarez, Oviedo, Ozerio, Ozores, Ozuno.
P.Pabón, Pacheco, Paco, Padilla, Páez, Paguaga, País, Países, Paiz, Pajuelo, Palacino, Palacio, Palacios, Palaco, Paladino, Palazuelos, Palencia, Palma, Palomar, Palomino, Palomo, Pamares, Pampillo, Pana, Pandolfo, Paniagua, Pantigoso, Pantoja, Paña, Papez, Parada, Parado, Parajeles, Parajón, Páramo, Pardo, Paredes, Pareja, Pares, París, Parra, Parrales, Parreaguirre, Parriles, Parrilla, Pasamontes, Pasapera, Pasos, Passapera, Pastor, Pastora, Pastrán, Pastrana, Pastrano, Patiño, Patricio, Paut, Pauth, Pavez, Pavón, Paz, Pazmiño, Pazos, Pedraza, Pedreira, Pedreiro, Pedroza, Peinador, Peinano, Peláez, Pellas, Pellecer, Pena, Penabad, Penado, Pendones, Penón, Penso, Peña, Peñaloza, Peñaranda, Peñas, Peñate, Penzo, Peñón, Peraldo, Perales, Peralta, Peraza, Perdomo, Perea, Perearnau, Pereira, Pereiras, Perera, Pereyra, Pérez, Perezache, Pergo, Pericón, Perla, Perlaza, Pessoa, Peynado, Peytrequín, Pezo, Picado, Picasso, Picavea, Pichardo, Pico, Picón, Piedra, Piedrafita, Pila, Pilarte, Pimente, Pina, Pinada, Pinagel, Pinagen, Pinar, Pincai, Pincay, Pinchinat, Pineda, Pinel, Pinell, Piney, Pinillos, Pinkay, Pino, Pintado, Pinto, Pinzas, Piña, Piñar, Piñate, Piñeiro, Piñeres, Pinzón, Pío, Pion, Piovano, Piovet, Pitalva, Piza, Pizarro, Pla, Plá, Placeres, Pláceres, Plácido, Placidón, Plaja, Platero, Poblador, Poblete, Pocasangre, Pochet, Podoy, Pokoy, Pol, Polamo, Polo, Polonio, Poma, Pomar, Pomareda, Pomares, Ponares, Ponce, Pontigo, Pool, Porat, Porquet, Porras, Porta, Portela, Porter,Portero, Portilla, Portillo, Portobanco, Portocarrera, Portugués, Portuguez, Posada, Posla, Poveda, Povedano, Pozo, Pozos, Pozuelo, Prada, Pradella, Pradilla, Prado, Prat, Pratt, Pravia, Prendas, Prendis, Pretiz, Prettel, Prieto, Prietto, Primante, Prior, Prioto, Privatt, Procupez, Puente, Puentes, Puertas, Puga, Puig, Pujo, Pujol, Pulido, Pulis, Pull, Pulles, Pupo, Purcallas.
Q.Quedo, Queralt, Queredo, Querra, Quesada, Quevedo, Quezada, Quiel, Quijada, Quijano, Quinaz, Quinde, Quino, Quintana, Quintanilla, Quinter, Quintero, Quinto, Quiñones, Quiñónez, Quirce, Quiroga, Quirós, Quiroz.
R.Raa, Raabe, Raba, Rabetta, Raga, Raigada, Raigosa, Ramírez, Ramón, Ramos, Randel, Randuro, Rangel, Raphael, Rauda, Raudes, Raudez, Raventos, Raventós, Raygada, Rayo, Rayos, Real, Reales, Reazco, Recinos, Recio, Redondo, Regaño, Regidor, Regueira, Regueyra, Reich, Reina, Renderos, Rendón, Reñazco, Repeto, Repetto, Requene, Requeno, Requeño, Rescia, Resenterra, Restrepo, Retana, Reuben, Revelo, Revilla, Revollar, Revollo, Rey, Reyes, Reyna, Riba, Ribas, Ribera, Ribero, Ricardo, Ricaurte, Riera, Rileva, Rincón, Río, Ríos, Riotte, Rivalta, Rivardo, Rivas, Rivel, Rivera, Rivero, Riverón, Riveros, Rizo, Roa, Roba, Robelo, Roble, Robles, Robleto, Roboz, Roca, Rocabado, Rocca, Roch, Rocha, Roda, Rodas, Rodesma, Rodesno, Rodezno, Rodó, Rodo, Rodrigo, Rodríguez, Roe, Roig, Rois, Rojas, Rojo, Roldán, Romagosa, Román, Romano, Romero, Roque, Rosa, Rosabal, Rosales, Rosas, Rouillón, Rovillón, Rovira, Roviralta, Roy, Royo, Roys, Rozados, Rozo, Ruano, Rubí, Rubia, Rubín, Rubino, Rubio, Rucavado, Rudín, Rueda, Rugama, Rugeles, Ruh, Ruilova, Ruin, Ruiz, Romoroso, Russo.
S.Saavedra, Saba, Sabah, Saballo, Saballos, Sabat, Sabate, Sabba, Sabín, Sabogal, Saborío, Saboz, Sacasa, Sacida, Sada, Sadaña, Sáenz, Saer, Saerron, Sáez, Safiano, Sage, Sagel, Sagot, Sagreda, Saguero, Sala, Salablanca, Salamanca, Salas, Salazar, Salbavarro, Salcedo, Salcino, Saldaña, Saldivar, Salgada, Salgado, Salguera, Salguero, Saliba, Salinas, Salmerón, Salmón, Salom, Salomón, Salumé, Salume, Salustro, Salvado, Salvatierra, Salvo, Samaniego, Sambrana, Samper, Samudio, Samuel, San Gil, San José, San Juan, San Martín, San Román, San Silvestre, Sanabria, Sanahuja, Saname, Sanamucia, Sanarrusia, Sánchez, Sancho, Sandí, Sandigo, Sandino, Sandoval, Sandria, Sandy, Sanga, Sangil, Sanjines, Sanjuan, Sansebastián, Sansilvestre, Sanson, Sansores, Santa Ana, Santa Cruz, Santa María, Santacruz, Santamaría, Santana, Santander, Santiago, Santibanes, Santiesteban, Santillán, Santín, Santisteban, Santoanastacio, Santos, Sanvicente, Sanz, Saraiva, Saravanja, Saravia, Sardinas, Sardiñas, Sariego, Sarmiento, Sárraga, Sarratea, Sarraulte, Sarria, Sas, Sasso, Satjo, Sauceda, Saucedo, Sauza, Savala, Savallos, Savedra, Savinón, Saxón, Sayaguez, Scriba, Seas, Seballos, Secades, Secaida, Seco, Sedano, Sedo, Segares, Segovia, Segreda, Segura, Sehezar, Selaya, Selles, Selva, Selvas, Semerawno, Semeraro, Sepúlveda, Sequeira, Sermeño, Serra, Serracín, Serrano, Serrato, Serraulte, Serru, Serrut, Servellón, Sevilla, Sevillano, Sibaja, Sierra, Sieza, Sigüenza, Siguenza, Siles, Siliezar, Silva, Silvera, Silvia, Simana, Simón, Sinchico, Sio, Sion, Siri, Sirias, Siverio, , Siz, Sobalvarro, Sobrado, Sojo, Sol, Solana, Solano, Solar, Solares, Solarte, Soldevilla, Solé, Solemne, Soler, Solera, Soley, Solís, Soliz, Solno, Solo, Solórzano, Soltero, Somarriba, Somarribas, Somoza, Soria, Sorio, Soro, Sorto, Sosa, Sossa, Sosto, Sotela,Sotelo, Sotillo, Soto, Sotomayor, Sotres, Souto, Soutullo, Sovalbarro, Soza, Suárez, Suazao, Suazo, Subia, Subiros, Subirós, Subisos, Succar, Sueiras, Suñer, Suñol, Surroca, Suyapa, Suzarte.
T.Tabah, Tabares, Tablada, Tabor, Tabora, Taborda, Taco, Tagarita, Tagarró, Tal, Talavera, Taleno, Tamara, Tamargo, Tamayo, Tames, Tanchez, Tanco, Tapia, Tapias, Taracena, Tardencilla, Tarjan, Tarrillo, Tasara, Tate, Tato, Tavares, Tedesco, Teherán, Teijeiro, Teixido, Tejada, Tejeda, Tejos, Tellería, Telles, Téllez, Tello, Tellos, Tencio, Tenorio, Terán, Tercero, Terrade, Terrientes, Terrin, Terrín, Thames, Theran, Thiel, Thiele, Thuel, Tíjeres, Tijerino, Tinoco, Toala, Tobal, Tobar, Tobe, Tobella, Tobín, Tobón, Toledo, Toletino, Tomas, Tomás, Tomeu, Toribio, Torijano, Tormo, Toro, Torralba, Torre, Torrealba, Torregresa, Torregroza, Torrente, Torrentes, Torres, Tórrez, Tortós, Tortosa, Toruño, Tosso, Touma, Toval, Tovar, Trala, Traña, Traures, Travierzo, Travieso, Trediño, Treguear, Trejos, Treminio, Treviño, Triana, Trigo, Triguel, Triguero, Trigueros, Trilite, Trimarco, Trimiño, Triquell, Tristán, Triunfo, Troche, Trocanis, Troncoso, Troya, Troyo, Troz, Trueba, Truffat, Trujillo, Trullas, Trullás, Truque, Tula, Turcio, Turcios.
U.Ubach, Ubao, Ubeda, Ubico, Ubilla, Ubisco, Ubizco, Ucanan, Ucañan, Ugalde, Ugarte, Ujueta, Ulacia, Ulate, Ulcigrai, Ulcigral, Ulecia, Uley, Ulibarri, Ulloa, Umaña, Umanzor, Ungar, Urain, Uralde, Urbano, Urbina, Urcuyo, Urdangarin, Urea, Urela, Ureña, Urgellés, Uriarte, Uribe, Uriel, Urieta, Uriza, Uroz, Urquiaga, Urra, Urraca, Urrea, Urroz, Urruela, Urrutia, Urtecho, Urunuela, Urzola, Usaga, Useda, Uva, Uveda, Uzaga, Uzcategui.
V.Vadivia, Vado, Valdelomar, Valderama, Valderrama, Valderramo, Valderramos, Valdés, Valdescastillo, Valdez, Valdiva, Valdivia, Valdivieso, Valencia, Valenciano, Valentín, Valenzuela, Valera, Valerín, Valerio, Vales, Valiente, Valladares, Vallarino, Vallcaneras, Valldeperas, Valle, Vallecillo, Vallecillos, Vallejo, Vallejos, Valles, Vallez, Valls, Vals, Valverde, Vanegas, Vaquerano, Vardesia, Varela, Varga, Vargas, Vargo, Varsi, Varsot, Vartanian, Varth, Vasco, Vasconcelos, Vasílica, Vásquez, Vassell, Vaz, Veas, Vedoba, Vedova, Vedoya, Vega, Vegas, Vela, Velarde, Velasco, Velásquez, Velazco, Velázquez, Vélez, Veliz, Venegas, Ventura, Vera, Verardo, Verastagui, Verdesia, Verdesoto, Vergara, Verguizas, Vertiz, Verzola, Vesco, Viales, Viana, Viatela, Vicario, Vicente, Vico, Víctor, Victores, Victoria, Vidaechea, Vidal, Vidales, Vidalón, Vidaorreta, Vidaurre, Videche, Vieira, Vieto, Vigil, Vigot, Vila, Vilaboa, Vilallobos, Vilanova, Vilaplana, Villar, Villareal, Villarebia, Villareiva, Villarreal, Villarroel, Villas, Villaseñor, Villasuso,Villatoro, Villaverde, Villavicencio, Villeda, Villegas, Villejas, Villena, Viloria, Vindas, Vindel, Vinueza, Viñas, Víquez, Viscaino, Viso, Vivallo, Vivas, Vivero, Vives, Vívez, Vivies, Vivó, Vizcaíno, Vizcayno.
W.Wainberg, Wolf.
Y.Yaacobi, Yanarella, Yanayaco, Yanes, Yepez, Yglesias, Yllanes, Yurica, Yzaguirre.
Z.Zabala, Zabaleta, Zabate, Zablah, Zacarías, Zacasa, Zalazar, Zaldivar, Zallas, Zambrana, Zambrano, Zamora, Zamorano, Zamudio, Zamuria, Zapata, Zaragoza, Zárate, Zarco, Zaror, Zarzosa, Zavala, Zavaleta, Zayas, Zayat, Zecca, Zedan, Zegarra, Zelada, Zelaya, Zeledón, Zepeda, Zetina, Zonta, Zoratte, Zuleta, Zumba, Zumbado, Zúñiga, Zunzunegui.  
Se prevé que esta ley se apruebe en dos meses.
Con información de Publimetro.

Este video esclarece y muestra la verdadera identificación de los judíos en España y su contribución positiva a la sociedad española ,a su cultura , a su espíritu humanista- La expulsión de los judíos fue un decisión trágica y errónea de los reyes católicos.


Como ejemplo, Monterrey fue fundado por Diego de Montemayor, y Carvajal y de la Cueva, que, según la historia, como tantos otros fueron ejecutados por la Santa Inquisición por hacerse pasar por católicos. A los sefardís se les llamaba marranos por la costumbre judía de no comer cerdo, y de no encender fuego en el Sabbat. La Nueva España, hoy México, en sus inicios fue uno de los lugares preferidos de destino de los sefardís. Los sefardís fueron una tremenda fuerza económica e ideológica pero los Reyes Católicos les dieron el ultimátum de convertirse al catolicismo o ser ejecutados y sus tierras y propiedades confiscadas. Lo más fácil era hacerse pasar por católico pero al seguir observando las costumbres hebreas se delataban. En México estos cripto-judios también sufrieron el despojo de sus bienes y las torturas y muertes más horribles (empalados, ahogados, mutilados, quemados).


YOLANDA MARÍN. 24.03.2014 – 14:43h PST 

Desde hace semanas circula por redes sociales y sitios de Internet una lista de apellidos judíos sefardíes que supuestamente les otorgaría a las personas que los tengan la nacionalidad española de forma automática. La noticia ha despertado curiosidad y esperanza en ciudadanos latinoamericanos que se han visto incluidos en el listado. Pero el Gobierno español ha confirmado a 20minutos que ese documento es falso.  Fuentes del Ministerio de Justicia han asegurado que este documento es apócrifo, ya que en ningún momento ha publicado un listado de apellidos oficial para poder acreditar la nacionalidad española. De hecho, aún ni se puede comenzar a tramitar porque únicamente es un anteproyecto de ley. Lo que sí es cierto es que existen planes para otorgar la nacionalidad española a los judíos sefardíes que reúnan ciertos requisitos. Pero tanto el Gobierno como asociaciones de ese colectivo han desmentido que el solo hecho de detentar alguno de los apellidos de ese listado haga a una persona candidata a esa nacionalidad. El Ministerio de Justicia español recomienda consultar su página web ante cualquier duda, “únicamente será oficial todo lo que salga en esta web”, señalaron.

Ver más en:http://www.20minutos.com/noticia/11970/0/listado-apellidos/judios-sefardies/ciudadania-espanola/#xtor=AD-1&xts=513357


REDACCIÓN SDPNOTICIAS.COM

vie 21 mar 2014 20:18

El Gobierno de España publicó una lista de 5 mil 220 apellidos y nombre judíos que serán reconocidos tras más de 500 años de ser excluidos. Días atrás, el parlamento español comenzó una análisis para devolver la ciudadanía a los descendiente de los judíos expulsados en 1492.

Aquellos que acrediten tener dichos apellidos vivan o no en España, podrán obtener doble nacionalidad. “Aquellos ciudadanos extranjeros sefardíes que prueben dicha condición y su especial vinculación con nuestro país, aunque no tengan residencia legal en España, cualquiera sea su ideología, religión o creencias”, señala el artículo 23 del Código Civil.

A.Abad, Abadía, Abarca, Abastos, Abaunza, Abbot, Abdallá, Abdalah, Abdallah, Abdelnour,Abdo, Abea, Abel, Abela, Abelado, Abella,Abellán, Abendaño, Abou, Abraham, Abrahams, Abrahán, Abrego, Abreu, Abrigo, Abril, Abufelo, Abugadba, Aburto, Acabal, Acebal, Acedo, Acevedo, Acosta, Acuña, Adames, Adamis, Adanaque, Adanis, Adis, Aedo, Agababa, Agámez, Agayón, Agrazal, Agreda, Aguayo, Agudelo, Agüero, Aguiar, Aguilar, Aguilera, Aguiluz, Aguilve, Aguinaga, Aguirre, Agurto,Agustín, Ahuja, Ahumada, Aiello, Aiza, Aizprúa, Aizpurúa, Alache, Alama, Alan, Alani, Alanis, Alanís, Alaniz, Alarcón, Alas, Alavez, Alayón, Alba, Albarello, Albarracín, Albelo, Albenda, Alburola, Alcaíno, Alcanzar, Alcázar, Alcazar, Alcibar, Alcócer, Alcóser, Alcóver, Alcózer, Aldana, Aldaña, Aldapa, Aldecoba, Alderrama, Alegría, Alejos, Alemán, Alexander, Alexandre, Alfaro, Alfonso, Algaba, Alguera, Aliaga, Alicama, Alier, Alizaga, Allan, Allon, Alluín, Almanza, Almanzar, Almanzo, Almaraz, Almazan, Almeida, Almendares, Almendárez, Almendáriz, Almengor, Almonte, Aloisio, Aloma, Alomar, Alonso, Alonzo, Alpírez, Alpízar, Altamirano, Altenor, Alterno, Altino, Altonor, Alva, Alvarado, Alvarenga, Alvares, Álvarez, Alvaro, Alvear, Alverde, Alvergue, Alvir, Alzate, Amado, Amador, Amalla, Amaris, Amaya, Amor, Amora, Amores, Amoros, Ampie, Ampié, Ampiée, Ampiee, Anaya, Anchetta, Anchez, Anchía, Anchieta, Andia, Andino, Andrade, André, Andrés, Andujar, Andújar, Andujo, Angele, Angelini, Anglada, Angulo, Anice, Anjos, Ansorena, Antelo, Antero, Antezana, Antich, Antillón, Antón, Antúnez, Anzora, Aparicio, Apolinar, Apollonio, Aponte, Aquiles, Aquino, Aragón,Aragones, Aragonés, Araica, Arana, Arancibia, Aranda, Arando, Arango, Aranjo, Araque, Arata, Araujo, Araus, Arauz, Araya, Arbaiza, Arballo, Arbelo, Arbizu, Arbizú, Arboleda, Arburola, Arca, Arcarate, Arce, Arceyudh, Arceyut, Arceyuth, Arcia, Arcía, Arciniegas, Ardila, Ardín, Ardón, Ardonnix, Areas, Arellano, Arena, Arenas, Arévalo, Argudo, Arguedas, Argüelles, Argüello, Argueta, Arguijo, Arias, Ariasdes, Arica, Arie, Ariño, Arispe, Arista, Ariza, Arjona, Armada, Armas, Armenta, Armento, Armeras, Armesto, Armijo, Arnáez, Arnau, Arnesto, Anuelo, Arnuero, Arone, Arosemena, Arquín, Arrazola, Arrea, Arredondo, Arreola, Arriaga, Arriagada, Arrieta, Arriola, Arrocha, Arroliga, Arrollo, Arrone, Arrones, Arronés, Arronez, Arronis, Arroniz, Arroyave, Arroyo, Arrubla, Artavia, Arteaga, Artecona, Artiaga, Artiga, Artiles, Artiñano, Artola, Artolozaga, Aruj, Aruizu, Arze, Arzola, Ascante, Ascencio, Asch, Asencio, Asero, Así, Asís, Aspirita, Astacio, Astete, Astorga, Astorquiza, Astúa, Asturias, Asunción, Asusema, Atehortúa, Atein, Atencio, Atensio, Atiensa, Atienza, Augusto, Ávalos, Avelar, Avellán, Avendaño, Ávila, Avilés, Avilez, Ayala, Ayales, Ayara, Ayarza, Aybar, Aycinena, Ayerdis, Aymerich, Azar, Azaria, Asofeifa, Azqueta, Azua, Azúa, Azuar, Azucena, Azul, Azuola, Azurdia.

B. Babb, Babar, Baca, Bacca, Bacigalupo, Badilla, Bado, Báez, Baeza, Baidal, Bairnales, Baizan, Bajarano, Balarezo, Baldares, Balday,Baldelomar, Balderas, Balderrama, Balderramos,Baldí, Baldi, Baldioceda, Baldivia, Baldizón,Balladares, Ballar, Ballard, Ballester, Ballestero,Ballesteros, Ballón, Balma, Balmaceda, Balmacera,Balon, Balser, Baltodano, Banegas, Banet, Banilla, Baños, Bañuelos,
Baquedano, Baquero, Baradín, Baraen, Barahoma, Barahona, Barajas,Baraquiso, Barat, Barba, Barbagallo, Barbagebra, Bárbara, Barbena, Barben,Barberena, Barbosa, Barboza, Barcelas, Barcelata, Barcenas, Barcia, Bardayan,Barguil, Barillas, Barletta, Baro, Barón, Barquedano, Barquero, Barquette, Barra, Barracosa, Barrante, Barrantes, Barraza, Barreda, Barrenechea, Barrera,Barrero, Barreto, Barrias, Barrientos, Barriga, Barrio, Barrionuevo, Barrios,Barroso, Barrot, Barrott, Barrundia, Barsallo, Bart, Bartal, Barteles, Bartels,Barth, Barvas, Baruch, Basadre, Basán, Basilio, Basti, Bastida, Bastos, Bastti,Batalla, Batán, Batista, Batres, Bautista, Bauzid, Baviera, Bayo, Bazán, Bazo,Beatriz, Becancur, Becerra, Becerril, Bedolla, Bedoya, Beeche, Beeché,Beingolea, Beita, Bejarano, Bejos, Bel, Belette, Belgrave, Bellanero, Bellido,Bello, Belloso, Belmonte, Beltrán, Beltre, Benach, Benambourg, Benambugr,Benambur, Benavente, Benavides, Benavídez, Benda, Bendaña, Bendig,Bendij, Benedictis, Beneditt, Benevides, Bengoechea, Benites, Benítez, Benito,Benzón, Berasaluce, Berciano, Berdasco, Berdugo, Berenzón, Bermejo,Bermeo, Bermudes, Bermúdez, Bernadas, Bernal, Bernardo, Bernat, Berrios,Berríos, Berrocal, Berrón, Bertel, Bertrán, Betancort, Bentancourt,Betancourth, Betancur, Betancurt, Beter, Beteta, Bethancourt, Betrano, Better,Biamonte, Binda, Blanco, Blandino, Blando, Blandón, Blau, Blum, Bobadilla,Bodán, Bogán, Bogantes, Bogarín, Bohorguez, Bohorquez, Bojorge, Bolaños,Bolívar, Bonice, Boniche, Bonichi, Bonilla, Borbas, Borbón, Borda, Bordallo,Borge, Borges, Borja, Borjas, Borjes, Borloz, Borras, Borrasé, Borredo,Borrero, Bosque, Botero, Boza, Bran, Bravia, Bravo, Brenes, Breve, Briceño,Brilla, Briones, Brito, Brizeño,Brizuela, Buencamino, Buendía, Bueno, Bueso,Buezo, Buga, Bugarín, Bugat, Bugria, Burgos, Burguera, Burgues, Burillo,Busano, Bustamante, Bustillo, Bustillos, Busto, Bustos, Buzano, Buzeta, Buzo.
C. Caamano, Caamaño, Cabada, Cabadianes, Cabal, Cabalceta, Caballero, Cabana, Cabaña, Cabeza, Cabezas, Cabistán, Cabral, Cabrera, Cabrerizo, Cáceres, Cadenas, Cadet, Cageao,Caicedo, Cairol, Cajas, Cajiao, Cajina, Cala, Calatayud, Calazán, Calcáneo, Caldas, Caldera, Calderón, Calero, Caliva, Calix, Calle, Calleja, Callejas, Callejo, Calles, Calvo, Calzada, Camacho, Camaño, Camarena, Camareno, Camarillo,Cambronero, Camona, Campabadal, Campabadall, Campodónico, Campos, Canales, Canalias, Canas, Candamo, Candelaria, Candelario, Canejo, Canessa, Canet, Canetta, Canizales, Canizález, Canizares, Canno, Cano, Canossa, Cantarero, Cantero, Cantillano, Canto, Cantón, Cañas, Cañizales, Cañizález, Capón, Carabaguias, Carabaguiaz, Caranza, Caravaca, Carazo, Carbalda, Carballo,Carbonell, Carbonero, Carcache, Carcachi, Cárcamo, Carcedo, Carcía, Cárdenas, Cárdenes, Cardona, Cardos, Cardoso, Cardoza, Cardoze, Cares, Carias, Caridad, Carit, Carlos, Carmiol, Carmona, Carnero, Caro, Carpio, Carranza, Carrasco, Carrasquilla, Carreño, Carrera, Carreras, Carrillo, Carrión, Carrizo, Carro, Cartagena, Cartago, Cartín, Carvajal, Carvalho, Carvallo, Casa, Casaca, Casafont, Casal, Casanova, Casañas, Cásares, Casas, Casasnovas, Casasola, Cascante, Casco, Casorla, Cassasola, Cásseres, Castaneda, Castañeda, Castañedas, Castaño, Castañón, Castaños, Castelán, Castellano, Castellanos, Castellón, Casteñeda, Castiblanco, Castilla, Castillo, Castro, Catania, Cateres, Catón, Cavalceta, Cavaller, Cavallo, Cavanillas, Cavazos, Cavero, Cazanga, Ceba, Ceballos, Ceciliano, Cedeño, Cejudo, Celada, Celedón, Celís, Centella, Centeno, Cepeda, Cerceño, Cerda, Cerdas, Cerna, Cernas, Cerón, Cerpas, Cerros, Cervantes, Cervilla, Céspedes, Cevallos, Cevedo, Cevilla, Chabrol, Chacón, Chamarro, Chamorro, Chanquín, Chanta, C 84 Chanto, Chavarría, Chavera, Chaverri, Chaves, Chávez, Chavira, Cheves, Chévez, Chica, Chicaiza, Chicas, Chilquillo, Chinchilla, Chinchillo, Chirino, Chirinos, Chocano, Choza, Cid, Cifuentes, Cintrón, Cisar, Cisne, Cisnero, Cisneros, Cisternas, Claro, Cleves, Cobaleda, Coe, Coello, Coen, Cohen, Coles, Colina, Colindres, Collado, Collina, Colom, Coloma, Colombo, Colomer, Concepción, Concha, Conde, Condega, Condes, Conedo, Conejo, Congosto, Conte, Contreras, Corales, Corao, Cordeiro, Cordero, Cordido, Córdoba, Cordón, Cordonero, Córdova, Cordoze, Corea, Corella, Cornavaca, Cornejo, Corona, Coronado, Coronas, Coronel, Corrales, Correa, Corredera, Corro, Corta, Cortaberría, Cortés, Cortez, Cortinez, Cortissoz, Corvera, Cosio, Cosiol, Cosme, Cossio, Costa, Cotera, Coto, Crespo, Crispín, Crispino, Cruces, Cruz, Cuadra, Cuadrado, Cuan, Cuaresma, Cuarezma, Cuarta, Cubas, Cubenas, Cubero, Cubías, Cubias, Cubilla, Cubillo, Cubillos, Cubria, Cuebas, Cuellar, Cuéllar, Cuello, Cuenca, Cuendis, Cuernavaca, Cuervo, Cuesta, Cueva, Cuevas, Cuevillas, Cunill, Cunillera, Curbelo, Curco, Curdelo.
D. Da Costa, Da Silva, Dacosta, D’Acosta,Dalorso, Dalorzo, Dalsaso, Damaceno, Damito,Daniel, Daniels, Dapuerto, Dapueto,Darce, Darche,Darcia, Darío, Dasadre, Dasilva, Dávalos, David,Dávila, Davis, D’Avola, De Abate, De Aguilar, De Alba, De Alvarado, De Benedictis, De Briones, De Camino, De Castro, De Céspedes, De Espeleta, De Ezpeleta, De Falco, De Faria, De Franco, De Jesús, De Jorge, De Juana, De La Cruz, De La Cuesta,De La Espriella, De La Fuente, De La Garza, De La Guardia, De La Herran, De La Hormaza, De La Jara, De La Mata, De La Nuez, De La O, De La Osa, De La Ossa, De La Paz, De La Peña, De La Rocha, De La Rosa, De La Selva, De La Teja, De La Torre, De La Trava, De La Vega, De Largaespada, De Las Casas, De Las Cuevas, De Las Heras, De Lemos, De León, De Lev, De Lima, De López, De Luz, De Miguel, De Miranda, De Moya, De Odio, De Óleo, De Ona, De Oña, De Paco, De Paredes, De Pass, De Paz, De Pazos, De Pedro, De Pinedo, De Prado, De Rayo, De Sárraga, De Sá, De Trinidad, De Ureña, De Vega, De Yglesias, Del Barco, Del Barrio, Del Bello, Del Busto, Del Carmen, Del Castillo, Del Cid, Del Pilar, Del Pimo, Del Río, Del Risco, Del Socorro,Del Solar, Del Valle, Delatolla, Delgadillo, Delgado, Deliyore, Dellale, Dellanoce, Delso, Delvo, Dengo, Denis, Dennis, Detrinidad, Devanda, Devandas, Devoto, Dias, Díaz, Díez, Díjeres, Díjerez, Dimas, Dinares, Dinarte, Discua, Doblado, Dobles, Dodero, Dalmus, Dalmuz, Domingo, Domínguez, Donado, Donaire, Donato, Doña, Doñas, Donzón, Dorado, Dormos, Dormuz,Doryan, Duar, Duares, Duarte, Duartes, Duenas, Dueñas, Duque, Duque Estrada, Durall, Durán, Durante, Duval, Duvall, Duverrán.
E.Echandi, Echavarría, Echeverri, Echeverría, Eduarte, Egea, Elías, Eligia, Elizalde, Elizonda, Elizondo, Elmaleh, Emanuel, Enrique, Enriques, Enríquez, Eras, Erazo, Escabar, Escalante, Escamilla, Escarré, Escobar, Escobedo, Escocia, Escorriola, Escosia, Escoto, Escovar, Escribano, Escude, Escudero, España, Esparragó, Espelerta, Espeleta, Espinach, Espinal, Espinales, Espinar, Espino, Espinosa, Espinoza, Espitia, Esquivel, Esteban, Esteves, Estévez, Estrada, Estrella.
F.Faba, Fabara, Fabián, Fábrega, Fabregat,Fabres, Facio, Faerrón, Faeth, Faiges, Fait, Faith,Fajardo, Falco, Falcón, Falla, Fallas, Farach, Farah,Fargas, Farias, Farías, Faries, Fariña, Fariñas,Farrach, Farrer, Farrera, Farrier, Fatjo, Fatjó, Faundez, Faune, Fava, Fazio, Fermández, Fermán,Fernandes, Fernández, Fernando, Ferrada, Ferrán, Ferrando, Ferraro,Ferreira,Ferreiro, Ferrer, Ferrero, Ferris, Ferro, Ferros,Fiallos, Fictoria, Fidalgo,Fierro, Figueiredo, Figuer,Figueras, Figueres, Figueroa, Filomena, Fletes,Fletis, Flores, Fonseca, Font, Forero, Formoso, Fornaguera, Fraga,Fraguela,Francés, Frances, Francesa, Francia, Francis,Franco, Fray, Frayle, Freer,Freira, Fresno, Freyre, Frías,Frutos, Fuentes, Fumero, Funes, Funez, Fúnez,Fuscaldo, Fusco.
G. Gabriel, Gadea, Gaete, Gago, Gainza, Gaitán,Galacia, Galagarza, Galán, Galarza, Galaviz, Galba,Galcerán, Galeano, Galeas, Galeno, Galera,Galiana, Galiano, Galindo, Galino, Galiñanes, Gallardo, Gallegas, Gallegos, Gallo, Galo, Galtés,Galván, Gálvez, Galvis, Gamarra, Gamazo, Gambo,Gamboa, Gámez, Garay, Garayar, Garbanzo, Garcés, García, Gardela,Gargollo, Garino, Garita, Garmendia, Garner, Garnier, Garreta, Garrido, Garro,Garrón, Garza, Garzel, Garzón, Garzona, Gaspar, Gateno,Gateño, Gavarrete,Gavilán, Gaviria, Gavosto, Gayoso,Gaytán, Gazel, Gazo, Geoyenaga, Gil,Gillén, Gilles, Giral, Giraldo, Giraldt, Giralt, Giro, Girón, Gladis, Goches,Góchez, Godines, Godínez, Godoy, Goic, Goicoechea, Goicuria, Goldenberg,Golfín, Gomar, Gómez, Gomis, Gondres,Góndrez, Góngora, Gonzaga,Gonzales, González, Gonzalo, Goñi, Gordon, Górgona, Goyenaga, Gracía,Gracias,Gradis, Grajal, Grajales, Grajeda, Grana,Granada, Granados, Granda,Grandoso, Granera, Granizo, Granja, Graña, Gras, Grau, Greco, Greñas,Gridalva, Grigoyen, Grijalba, Grijalda, Grijalva, Grillo, Guadamuz, Guadrón,Guajardo, Guardado, Guardano, Guardia, Guardián, Guardiola, Guarín,Guasch, Gudino, Gudiño, Güel, Güell, Güendel, Güendell, Guerra, Guerrero,Guevara, Guido, Guie, Guier, Guifarro, Guilá, Guillarte, Guillén, Guillermet,Guillermo, Guilles, Güillies, Guillies, Guillis,Guilloch, Guiménez, Guindos,Guitiérrez, Guitta, Guix,Gulubay, Gunera, Guntanis, Gurdián, Gurrero,Gurrola, Gustavino, Gutiérrez, Guzmán.
H.Haba, Habibe, Haenz, Harrah, Hénchoz,Henríquez, Henrriquez, Herdocia, Heredia,Herencia, Heríquez, Hermann, Hermosilla, Hernández, Hernando, Hernánez, Herra, Herradora,Herrán, Herrera, Herrero, Hevia, Hidalgo, Hierro,Hincapié, Hinostroza, Horna, Hornedo, Huerta,Huertas, Huete, Huezo, Hurtado, Hurtecho.
I. Ibáñez, Ibarra, Ibarras, Icaza, Iglesias, Ilama,Incapié, Incer, Incera, Inceras, Inces, Infante,Iracheta, Iraheta, Irastorza, Irias, Iribar, Irigaray,Irola, Isaac, Isaacs, Israel, Ivañez, Izaba, Izaguirre,Izandra, Iznardo, Izquierdo, Izrael, Izurieta
J.Jácamo, Jacobo, Jácome, Jácomo, Jaen,Jáenz, Jara, Jaramillo, Jarquín, Jarrín, Jerano, Jerez,Jiménez, Jimera, Jinesta, Jirón, Joseph, Jovel,Juárez, Junco, Juncos, Jurado.
K. Kaminsky, Klein, Kuadra.
L.La Barca, Labra, Lacarez, Lacayo, Lafuente,Lago, Lagos, Laguardia, Laguna, Lain, Laine,Lainez, Laitano, Lamas, Lamela, Lamicq,Lamugue, Lamuza, Lancho, Lanco, Landazuri,Lández, Lanuza, Lanza, Lanzas, Lapeira, Laporte,Laprade, Lara, Lares, Largaespada, Largo, Larios,Larrabure, Larrad, Larragan,Larragán, Larraguivel, Lasa, Lasantas, Láscares,Láscarez, Láscaris, Lasso, Lastra, Lastreto, Latiff,Latino, Latorraca, Laurito,Laverde, Lázaro, Lázarus, Lázcares, Lazo, Lazzo, L’Calleja, Leal, Leandra,Leandro, Ledezma, Ledo, Leitón, Leiva, Lejarza, Lemmes,Lemos, Lemus,Lemuz, Leñero, León, Lépiz, Levi, Leytón, Leyva,Lezama, Lezana, Lezcano,Lhamas, Lieberman, Lima, Linares, Linarte,Lindo, Lines, Líos, Lira, Lizama,Lizana, Lizano, Lizarme, Llabona, Llach, Llado, Llamazares, Llamosas, Llano,Lanos, Llanten, Llaurado, Llerena, Llibre, Llinas, Llobet, Llobeth,Llorca, Llorella, Llorens, Llorente, Llosent, Lloser, Llovera, Llubere,Loáciga,Loáiciga, Loáisiga, Loaissa, Loaiza, Lobo,Loeb, Loew, Loinaz, Lombardo,Londoño, Lope,Lopes, Lopera, López, Lopezlage, Loprete, Lora, Loredo, Lorente,Lorenz, Lorenzana, Lorenzen, Lorenzo, Loría, Lorío, Lorio, Lorz, Losada,Losilla,Louk, Louzao, Loynaz, Loza, Lozano, Luarca, Lucas, Lucena,Lucero,Lucke, Lugo, Luis, Luján, Luna, Lunaza, Luque, Luquez.
M.Macaya, Macedo, Maceo, Machado, Machín, Machuca, Macia, Macias, Macías, Macís, Macre, Macrea, Madariaga, Maderos, Madinagoitia, Madrano, Madrid, Madriga, Madrigal, Madril, Madriz, Maduro, Magalhaes, Magallón, Magaña, Magdalena, Maguiña, Mahomar, Maikut, Maingot, Mairena, Maisonave, Maita, Majano, Majarres, Malaga, Maldonado, Malé, Malespín, Malestín, Maltés, Maltez, Malvarez, Manavella, Mancheno, Mancia, Mancía, Mandas, Mangaña, Mangas, Mangel, Manjarres, Mans, Mansalvo, Mansilla, Manso, Mantanero, Mantica, Mantilla, Manuel, Manzanal, Manzanares, Manzano, Manzur, Marabiaga, Maradiaga, Marbes, Marbis, Marcenaro, March, Marchena, Marcia, Marcías, Marcillo, Marcos, Mardones, Marenco, Margules, María, Marichal, Marín, Marinero, Marino, Mariñas, Mariño, Marot, Maroto, Marqués, Marquez, Marreco, Marrero, Marroquín, Marsell, Marte, Martell, Martén, Martens, Martí, Martin, Martínez, Martins, Marvez, Mas, Masía, Masís, Maso, Mason, Massuh, Mastache, Mata, Matamoros, Matarrita, Mate, Mateo, Matera, Mateus, Matías, Matos, Mattus, Mattuz, Matul, Matus, Matute, Maurel, Maurer, Mauricio, Mauro, Maynard, Maynaro, Maynart, Mayo, Mayor, Mayorga, Mayorquín, Mayre, Mayrena, Maza, Mazariegos, Mazas, Mazín, Mazón, Mazuque, Mazure, Medal, Mederano, Mederas, Medeiros, Medina, Medinilla, Medoza, Medrano, Meira, Mejía, Mejías, Melara, Meléndez, Melgar, Melgarrejo, Mellado, Melo, Membreño, Mena, Menayo, Menchaca, Mendea, Méndez, Mendiantuba, Mendieta, Mendiola, Mendives, Mendivil, Mendoza, Mendreño, Menéndez, Meneses, Menjibar, Menjivar, Menocal, Meono, Meoño, Merayo, Meraz, Merazo, Merazzo, Mercado, Mercelina, Mercer, Mergarejo, Mérida, Merino, Merizalde, Merlo, Mesa, Mesales, Mesalles, Meseguer, Mesén, Messeguer, M 95 Mestayer, Meszaros, Meza, Michelena, Michelino, Micillo, Miguez, Mijangos, Mijares, Milanés, Milano, Millet, Mina, Minas, Minero,Miño, Miqueo, Miraba, Miralles, Mirambell, Miramontes, Miranda, Miro, Mirquez, Mitja, Mitjavila, Mizrachi, Mojarro, Mojica, Molestina, Molian, Molín, Molina, Molinero, Molleda, Mollinedo, Mollo, Moncada, Mondol, Mondragón, Moneda, Moneiro, Monestel, Monga, Mongalo, Móngalo, Monge, Mongillo, Monguillo, Monjarres, Monjarrez, Monjica, Monserrat, Montagné, Montalbán, Montalbert, Montalto, Montalván, Montalvo, Montana, Montanaro, Montandón, Montano, Montealegre, Montealto, Montecino, Montecinos, Monteil, Montejo, Montenaro, Montenegro, Montero, Monterosa, Monteroza, Monterrey, Monterrosa, Monterroso, Montes, Monterinos, Monteverde, Montiel, Montier, Montoya, Monturiol, Mora, Moraes, Moraga, Morales, Morán, Morazán, Moreira, Morejón, Morena, Moreno, Morera, Moriano, Morice, Morillo, Morín, Moris, Morise, Moro, Morote, Moroto, Morraz, Morúa, Morún, Morux, Morvillo, Moscarella, Moscoa, Moscoso, Mosquera, Motta, Moxi, Moya, Mozquera, Mugica, Muiña, Muir, Mulato, Munera, Mungía, Munguía, Munive, Munizaga, Muñante, Muñiz, Muñoz, Murcia, Murgado, Murgas, Murias, Murillo, Murilo, Muro, Mussap, Mussapp, Mussio, Mustelier, Muxo.
N.Naim, Naira, Nájar,Nájares, Najarro, Nájera, Nájeres, Naranjo, Narvaes, Narváez, Nasralah, Nasso, Navaro, Navarrete, Navarrette, Navarro, Navas, Nayap, Nazario, Nema, Nemar, Neyra, Nieto, Nino, Niño, Noble, Noboa, Noel, Nogebro, Noguera, Nomberto, Nora, Noriega, Norza, Nova, Novales, Novo, Novoa, Nuevo, Nuez, Nunga, Núñez.
O.Obaldía, Obanbo, Obando, Obares, Obellón, Obon, Obrego, Obregón, Ocampo, Ocampos, Ocaña, Ocaño, Ocario, Ochoa, Ocón, Oconitrillo, Ode, Odio, Odir, Odóñez, Odor, Oduber, Oguilve, Ojeda, Okarlo, Okendo, Olarte, Olaso, Olaverri, Olazaba, Olguín, Oliva, Olivar, Olivares, Olivárez, Olivas, Oliver, Olivera, Oliverio, Olivier, Oliviera, Olivo, Oller, Olmeda, Olmedo, Olmo, Olmos, Omacell, Omodeo, Ondoy, Onetto, Oñate, Oñoro, Oporta, Oporto, Oquendo, Ora, Orama, Oramas, Orantes, Ordeñana, Ordoñes, Ordóñez, Orduz, Oreamuno, Oreas, Oreiro, Orella, Orellana, Orfila, Orias, Orios, Orjas, Orjuela, Orlich, Ormasis, Ormeño, Orna, Ornes, Orochena, Orocu, Orosco, Orozco, Ortega, Ortegón, Ortiz, Ortuño, Orve, Osante, Oseda, Osegueda, Osejo, Osequeda, Oses, Osorio, Osorno, Ospina, Ospino, Ossa, Otalvaro, Otárola, Otero, Oto, Otoya, Ovares, Ovarez, Oviedo, Ozerio, Ozores, Ozuno.
P.Pabón, Pacheco, Paco, Padilla, Páez, Paguaga, País, Países, Paiz, Pajuelo, Palacino, Palacio, Palacios, Palaco, Paladino, Palazuelos, Palencia, Palma, Palomar, Palomino, Palomo, Pamares, Pampillo, Pana, Pandolfo, Paniagua, Pantigoso, Pantoja, Paña, Papez, Parada, Parado, Parajeles, Parajón, Páramo, Pardo, Paredes, Pareja, Pares, París, Parra, Parrales, Parreaguirre, Parriles, Parrilla, Pasamontes, Pasapera, Pasos, Passapera, Pastor, Pastora, Pastrán, Pastrana, Pastrano, Patiño, Patricio, Paut, Pauth, Pavez, Pavón, Paz, Pazmiño, Pazos, Pedraza, Pedreira, Pedreiro, Pedroza, Peinador, Peinano, Peláez, Pellas, Pellecer, Pena, Penabad, Penado, Pendones, Penón, Penso, Peña, Peñaloza, Peñaranda, Peñas, Peñate, Penzo, Peñón, Peraldo, Perales, Peralta, Peraza, Perdomo, Perea, Perearnau, Pereira, Pereiras, Perera, Pereyra, Pérez, Perezache, Pergo, Pericón, Perla, Perlaza, Pessoa, Peynado, Peytrequín, Pezo, Picado, Picasso, Picavea, Pichardo, Pico, Picón, Piedra, Piedrafita, Pila, Pilarte, Pimente, Pina, Pinada, Pinagel, Pinagen, Pinar, Pincai, Pincay, Pinchinat, Pineda, Pinel, Pinell, Piney, Pinillos, Pinkay, Pino, Pintado, Pinto, Pinzas, Piña, Piñar, Piñate, Piñeiro, Piñeres, Pinzón, Pío, Pion, Piovano, Piovet, Pitalva, Piza, Pizarro, Pla, Plá, Placeres, Pláceres, Plácido, Placidón, Plaja, Platero, Poblador, Poblete, Pocasangre, Pochet, Podoy, Pokoy, Pol, Polamo, Polo, Polonio, Poma, Pomar, Pomareda, Pomares, Ponares, Ponce, Pontigo, Pool, Porat, Porquet, Porras, Porta, Portela, Porter,Portero, Portilla, Portillo, Portobanco, Portocarrera, Portugués, Portuguez, Posada, Posla, Poveda, Povedano, Pozo, Pozos, Pozuelo, Prada, Pradella, Pradilla, Prado, Prat, Pratt, Pravia, Prendas, Prendis, Pretiz, Prettel, Prieto, Prietto, Primante, Prior, Prioto, Privatt, Procupez, Puente, Puentes, Puertas, Puga, Puig, Pujo, Pujol, Pulido, Pulis, Pull, Pulles, Pupo, Purcallas.
Q.Quedo, Queralt, Queredo, Querra, Quesada, Quevedo, Quezada, Quiel, Quijada, Quijano, Quinaz, Quinde, Quino, Quintana, Quintanilla, Quinter, Quintero, Quinto, Quiñones, Quiñónez, Quirce, Quiroga, Quirós, Quiroz.
R.Raa, Raabe, Raba, Rabetta, Raga, Raigada, Raigosa, Ramírez, Ramón, Ramos, Randel, Randuro, Rangel, Raphael, Rauda, Raudes, Raudez, Raventos, Raventós, Raygada, Rayo, Rayos, Real, Reales, Reazco, Recinos, Recio, Redondo, Regaño, Regidor, Regueira, Regueyra, Reich, Reina, Renderos, Rendón, Reñazco, Repeto, Repetto, Requene, Requeno, Requeño, Rescia, Resenterra, Restrepo, Retana, Reuben, Revelo, Revilla, Revollar, Revollo, Rey, Reyes, Reyna, Riba, Ribas, Ribera, Ribero, Ricardo, Ricaurte, Riera, Rileva, Rincón, Río, Ríos, Riotte, Rivalta, Rivardo, Rivas, Rivel, Rivera, Rivero, Riverón, Riveros, Rizo, Roa, Roba, Robelo, Roble, Robles, Robleto, Roboz, Roca, Rocabado, Rocca, Roch, Rocha, Roda, Rodas, Rodesma, Rodesno, Rodezno, Rodó, Rodo, Rodrigo, Rodríguez, Roe, Roig, Rois, Rojas, Rojo, Roldán, Romagosa, Román, Romano, Romero, Roque, Rosa, Rosabal, Rosales, Rosas, Rouillón, Rovillón, Rovira, Roviralta, Roy, Royo, Roys, Rozados, Rozo, Ruano, Rubí, Rubia, Rubín, Rubino, Rubio, Rucavado, Rudín, Rueda, Rugama, Rugeles, Ruh, Ruilova, Ruin, Ruiz, Romoroso, Russo.
S.Saavedra, Saba, Sabah, Saballo, Saballos, Sabat, Sabate, Sabba, Sabín, Sabogal, Saborío, Saboz, Sacasa, Sacida, Sada, Sadaña, Sáenz, Saer, Saerron, Sáez, Safiano, Sage, Sagel, Sagot, Sagreda, Saguero, Sala, Salablanca, Salamanca, Salas, Salazar, Salbavarro, Salcedo, Salcino, Saldaña, Saldivar, Salgada, Salgado, Salguera, Salguero, Saliba, Salinas, Salmerón, Salmón, Salom, Salomón, Salumé, Salume, Salustro, Salvado, Salvatierra, Salvo, Samaniego, Sambrana, Samper, Samudio, Samuel, San Gil, San José, San Juan, San Martín, San Román, San Silvestre, Sanabria, Sanahuja, Saname, Sanamucia, Sanarrusia, Sánchez, Sancho, Sandí, Sandigo, Sandino, Sandoval, Sandria, Sandy, Sanga, Sangil, Sanjines, Sanjuan, Sansebastián, Sansilvestre, Sanson, Sansores, Santa Ana, Santa Cruz, Santa María, Santacruz, Santamaría, Santana, Santander, Santiago, Santibanes, Santiesteban, Santillán, Santín, Santisteban, Santoanastacio, Santos, Sanvicente, Sanz, Saraiva, Saravanja, Saravia, Sardinas, Sardiñas, Sariego, Sarmiento, Sárraga, Sarratea, Sarraulte, Sarria, Sas, Sasso, Satjo, Sauceda, Saucedo, Sauza, Savala, Savallos, Savedra, Savinón, Saxón, Sayaguez, Scriba, Seas, Seballos, Secades, Secaida, Seco, Sedano, Sedo, Segares, Segovia, Segreda, Segura, Sehezar, Selaya, Selles, Selva, Selvas, Semerawno, Semeraro, Sepúlveda, Sequeira, Sermeño, Serra, Serracín, Serrano, Serrato, Serraulte, Serru, Serrut, Servellón, Sevilla, Sevillano, Sibaja, Sierra, Sieza, Sigüenza, Siguenza, Siles, Siliezar, Silva, Silvera, Silvia, Simana, Simón, Sinchico, Sio, Sion, Siri, Sirias, Siverio, , Siz, Sobalvarro, Sobrado, Sojo, Sol, Solana, Solano, Solar, Solares, Solarte, Soldevilla, Solé, Solemne, Soler, Solera, Soley, Solís, Soliz, Solno, Solo, Solórzano, Soltero, Somarriba, Somarribas, Somoza, Soria, Sorio, Soro, Sorto, Sosa, Sossa, Sosto, Sotela,Sotelo, Sotillo, Soto, Sotomayor, Sotres, Souto, Soutullo, Sovalbarro, Soza, Suárez, Suazao, Suazo, Subia, Subiros, Subirós, Subisos, Succar, Sueiras, Suñer, Suñol, Surroca, Suyapa, Suzarte.
T.Tabah, Tabares, Tablada, Tabor, Tabora, Taborda, Taco, Tagarita, Tagarró, Tal, Talavera, Taleno, Tamara, Tamargo, Tamayo, Tames, Tanchez, Tanco, Tapia, Tapias, Taracena, Tardencilla, Tarjan, Tarrillo, Tasara, Tate, Tato, Tavares, Tedesco, Teherán, Teijeiro, Teixido, Tejada, Tejeda, Tejos, Tellería, Telles, Téllez, Tello, Tellos, Tencio, Tenorio, Terán, Tercero, Terrade, Terrientes, Terrin, Terrín, Thames, Theran, Thiel, Thiele, Thuel, Tíjeres, Tijerino, Tinoco, Toala, Tobal, Tobar, Tobe, Tobella, Tobín, Tobón, Toledo, Toletino, Tomas, Tomás, Tomeu, Toribio, Torijano, Tormo, Toro, Torralba, Torre, Torrealba, Torregresa, Torregroza, Torrente, Torrentes, Torres, Tórrez, Tortós, Tortosa, Toruño, Tosso, Touma, Toval, Tovar, Trala, Traña, Traures, Travierzo, Travieso, Trediño, Treguear, Trejos, Treminio, Treviño, Triana, Trigo, Triguel, Triguero, Trigueros, Trilite, Trimarco, Trimiño, Triquell, Tristán, Triunfo, Troche, Trocanis, Troncoso, Troya, Troyo, Troz, Trueba, Truffat, Trujillo, Trullas, Trullás, Truque, Tula, Turcio, Turcios.
U.Ubach, Ubao, Ubeda, Ubico, Ubilla, Ubisco, Ubizco, Ucanan, Ucañan, Ugalde, Ugarte, Ujueta, Ulacia, Ulate, Ulcigrai, Ulcigral, Ulecia, Uley, Ulibarri, Ulloa, Umaña, Umanzor, Ungar, Urain, Uralde, Urbano, Urbina, Urcuyo, Urdangarin, Urea, Urela, Ureña, Urgellés, Uriarte, Uribe, Uriel, Urieta, Uriza, Uroz, Urquiaga, Urra, Urraca, Urrea, Urroz, Urruela, Urrutia, Urtecho, Urunuela, Urzola, Usaga, Useda, Uva, Uveda, Uzaga, Uzcategui.
V.Vadivia, Vado, Valdelomar, Valderama, Valderrama, Valderramo, Valderramos, Valdés, Valdescastillo, Valdez, Valdiva, Valdivia, Valdivieso, Valencia, Valenciano, Valentín, Valenzuela, Valera, Valerín, Valerio, Vales, Valiente, Valladares, Vallarino, Vallcaneras, Valldeperas, Valle, Vallecillo, Vallecillos, Vallejo, Vallejos, Valles, Vallez, Valls, Vals, Valverde, Vanegas, Vaquerano, Vardesia, Varela, Varga, Vargas, Vargo, Varsi, Varsot, Vartanian, Varth, Vasco, Vasconcelos, Vasílica, Vásquez, Vassell, Vaz, Veas, Vedoba, Vedova, Vedoya, Vega, Vegas, Vela, Velarde, Velasco, Velásquez, Velazco, Velázquez, Vélez, Veliz, Venegas, Ventura, Vera, Verardo, Verastagui, Verdesia, Verdesoto, Vergara, Verguizas, Vertiz, Verzola, Vesco, Viales, Viana, Viatela, Vicario, Vicente, Vico, Víctor, Victores, Victoria, Vidaechea, Vidal, Vidales, Vidalón, Vidaorreta, Vidaurre, Videche, Vieira, Vieto, Vigil, Vigot, Vila, Vilaboa, Vilallobos, Vilanova, Vilaplana, Villar, Villareal, Villarebia, Villareiva, Villarreal, Villarroel, Villas, Villaseñor, Villasuso,Villatoro, Villaverde, Villavicencio, Villeda, Villegas, Villejas, Villena, Viloria, Vindas, Vindel, Vinueza, Viñas, Víquez, Viscaino, Viso, Vivallo, Vivas, Vivero, Vives, Vívez, Vivies, Vivó, Vizcaíno, Vizcayno.
W.Wainberg, Wolf.
Y.Yaacobi, Yanarella, Yanayaco, Yanes, Yepez, Yglesias, Yllanes, Yurica, Yzaguirre.
Z.Zabala, Zabaleta, Zabate, Zablah, Zacarías, Zacasa, Zalazar, Zaldivar, Zallas, Zambrana, Zambrano, Zamora, Zamorano, Zamudio, Zamuria, Zapata, Zaragoza, Zárate, Zarco, Zaror, Zarzosa, Zavala, Zavaleta, Zayas, Zayat, Zecca, Zedan, Zegarra, Zelada, Zelaya, Zeledón, Zepeda, Zetina, Zonta, Zoratte, Zuleta, Zumba, Zumbado, Zúñiga, Zunzunegui.  
Se prevé que esta ley se apruebe en dos meses.
Con información de Publimetro.

Gimnasia cerebral

¿Qué ocurre en tu cerebro cuando tejes?

Por Jacque Wilson, CNN

Hacer manualidades puede ayudar a aquellos que sufren de ansiedad, depresión o dolor crónico, dicen los expertos. También puede disminuir el estrés, aumentar la felicidad y proteger al cerebro de daños causados por el envejecimiento. Pocos estudios se han hecho específicamente en cuanto a hacer manualidades, pero los neurólogos empiezan a ver cómo estudios de actividades cognitivas, tales como resolver crucigramas, también podrían aplicarse a quienes hacen complejos patrones de ‘quilting’. Otros están estableciendo conexiones entre los beneficios que la meditación tiene en la salud mental, y el zen que se alcanza al momento de pintar o esculpir. “Está surgiendo una evidencia prometedora para respaldar lo que muchas de las personas que hacen manualidades han sabido desde hace bastante tiempo”, dice Catherine Carey Levisay, una neuropsicóloga autorizada y esposa de John Levisay, director ejecutivo de Craftsy.com. “Y es que crear algo -ya sea a través del arte, la música, la cocina, el ‘quilting’, la costura, los dibujos, la fotografía o la decoración de pasteles- nos beneficia de varias maneras”.

Efectos similares a la meditación

Incluso hoy en día, años después de que Huerta aprendiera a tejer por primera vez, ella sabe que puede perderse horas en un patrón complejo.

El psicólogo Mihaly Csikszentimihalyi inicialmente describió este fenómeno como fluidez: unos cuantos momentos en el tiempo donde te absorbe tanto una actividad que nada más parece importarte. La fluidez, dice Csikszentimihalyi, es el secreto de la felicidad: una declaración que respalda con décadas de investigación.

“Cuando estamos involucrados en algo que requiere creatividad, sentimos que estamos viviendo más plenamente que durante el resto de nuestra vida”, dijo Csikszentimihalyi en una conferencia TED en 2004. “Sabes que lo que necesitas hacer es posible de lograr, incluso si se trata de algo difícil, así que la sensación de tiempo desaparece. Te olvidas de ti mismo. Te sientes parte de algo mucho mayor”.

Nuestro sistema nervioso solo puede procesar cierta cantidad de información a la vez, explica. Ésa es la razón por la que no puedes escuchar y entender a dos personas mientras te hablan al mismo tiempo. Así que cuando alguien empieza a crear, su existencia fuera de esa actividad se “suspende temporalmente”.

“No le queda suficiente atención para monitorear cómo se siente su cuerpo, o sus problemas en casa. No siente hambre o cansancio. Su cuerpo desaparece”.

Los efectos de la fluidez son similares a los de la meditación, dice la terapeuta ocupacional Victoria Schindler. La ciencia ha demostrado que la meditación puede, entre otras cosas, reducir el estrés y combatir la inflamación.

Nuestros cuerpos están en un constante estado de estrés debido a que nuestro cerebro no puede establecer la diferencia entre una reunión con el jefe y un ataque de un oso, dice Schindler. Los movimientos repetitivos de tejer, por ejemplo, activan el sistema nervioso parasimpático, lo cual disipa esa respuesta de “lucha o huida”.

En el estudio “Las bases neurológicas de la ocupación”, escrito en 2007, Schindler y la coautora Sharon Gutman afirman que los pacientes podrían aprender a utilizar actividades como dibujar o pintar para provocar la fluidez, lo cual ofrecería una manera no farmacéutica de regular las emociones fuertes como el enojo, o prevenir los pensamientos irracionales.

“La fluidez tiene el potencial de ayudar a los pacientes a disipar el caos interno”, escriben.


¿Qué ocurre en tu cerebro cuando tejes?

Por Jacque Wilson, CNN

Hacer manualidades puede ayudar a aquellos que sufren de ansiedad, depresión o dolor crónico, dicen los expertos. También puede disminuir el estrés, aumentar la felicidad y proteger al cerebro de daños causados por el envejecimiento. Pocos estudios se han hecho específicamente en cuanto a hacer manualidades, pero los neurólogos empiezan a ver cómo estudios de actividades cognitivas, tales como resolver crucigramas, también podrían aplicarse a quienes hacen complejos patrones de ‘quilting’. Otros están estableciendo conexiones entre los beneficios que la meditación tiene en la salud mental, y el zen que se alcanza al momento de pintar o esculpir. “Está surgiendo una evidencia prometedora para respaldar lo que muchas de las personas que hacen manualidades han sabido desde hace bastante tiempo”, dice Catherine Carey Levisay, una neuropsicóloga autorizada y esposa de John Levisay, director ejecutivo de Craftsy.com. “Y es que crear algo -ya sea a través del arte, la música, la cocina, el ‘quilting’, la costura, los dibujos, la fotografía o la decoración de pasteles- nos beneficia de varias maneras”.

Efectos similares a la meditación

Incluso hoy en día, años después de que Huerta aprendiera a tejer por primera vez, ella sabe que puede perderse horas en un patrón complejo.

El psicólogo Mihaly Csikszentimihalyi inicialmente describió este fenómeno como fluidez: unos cuantos momentos en el tiempo donde te absorbe tanto una actividad que nada más parece importarte. La fluidez, dice Csikszentimihalyi, es el secreto de la felicidad: una declaración que respalda con décadas de investigación.

“Cuando estamos involucrados en algo que requiere creatividad, sentimos que estamos viviendo más plenamente que durante el resto de nuestra vida”, dijo Csikszentimihalyi en una conferencia TED en 2004. “Sabes que lo que necesitas hacer es posible de lograr, incluso si se trata de algo difícil, así que la sensación de tiempo desaparece. Te olvidas de ti mismo. Te sientes parte de algo mucho mayor”.

Nuestro sistema nervioso solo puede procesar cierta cantidad de información a la vez, explica. Ésa es la razón por la que no puedes escuchar y entender a dos personas mientras te hablan al mismo tiempo. Así que cuando alguien empieza a crear, su existencia fuera de esa actividad se “suspende temporalmente”.

“No le queda suficiente atención para monitorear cómo se siente su cuerpo, o sus problemas en casa. No siente hambre o cansancio. Su cuerpo desaparece”.

Los efectos de la fluidez son similares a los de la meditación, dice la terapeuta ocupacional Victoria Schindler. La ciencia ha demostrado que la meditación puede, entre otras cosas, reducir el estrés y combatir la inflamación.

Nuestros cuerpos están en un constante estado de estrés debido a que nuestro cerebro no puede establecer la diferencia entre una reunión con el jefe y un ataque de un oso, dice Schindler. Los movimientos repetitivos de tejer, por ejemplo, activan el sistema nervioso parasimpático, lo cual disipa esa respuesta de “lucha o huida”.

En el estudio “Las bases neurológicas de la ocupación”, escrito en 2007, Schindler y la coautora Sharon Gutman afirman que los pacientes podrían aprender a utilizar actividades como dibujar o pintar para provocar la fluidez, lo cual ofrecería una manera no farmacéutica de regular las emociones fuertes como el enojo, o prevenir los pensamientos irracionales.

“La fluidez tiene el potencial de ayudar a los pacientes a disipar el caos interno”, escriben.


install Apps in memory card in galaxy fame

galaxy fame S6812. All applications are installed into device memory by default and I could not move the installed apps into memory card. And there is no option “Move to SDCard” in device application manager. I have tried with some tools (like App to Sd card) but failed. If rooted “Folder Mount” may help and […]

galaxy fame S6812.

All applications are installed into device memory by default and I could not move the installed apps into memory card. And there is no option “Move to SDCard” in device application manager. I have tried with some tools (like App to Sd card) but failed.

If rooted “Folder Mount” may help and the description on google play gives quite a good explanation.

Android 4 and upwards does not really expect there to be SD cards and does not include the ability to install apps on SD (Samsung thankfully continue to provide the facility of an SDcard for data – although Nexus phones don’t)

Many apps have settings which allow data to be saved to SD card rather than “internal storage” Normally on samsungs, the internal storage is a folder called /storage/sdcard0 and the real removeable SD card is something like /storage/ExtSdCard (name from Note2)

Zachman y los seis honestos de Kipling

I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew) Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who Uno de los dichos de mi buen amigo Ángel es sobre la gracia del gringo, ese gringo mítico de poderes de Comic, para tomar algún concepto del sentido común y […]

I keep six honest serving-men

(They taught me all I knew)

Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who

Uno de los dichos de mi buen amigo Ángel es sobre la gracia del gringo, ese gringo mítico de poderes de Comic, para tomar algún concepto del sentido común y convertirlo en un producto mercadeable. Un ejemplo interesante de esto es el marco de Zachman para arquitecturas empresariales. Todo un icono en la comunidad de arquitectura de datos. Se basa en el patrón de analizar problemas con una matriz de puntos a revisar. En el marco de Zachman las columnas corresponden a los seis interrogantes en ingles y las hileras a diferentes roles en el desarrollo de una aplicación empresarial. De este sencillo concepto Zachman desarrolla todo una teoría detallada de cómo documentar y administrar un proyecto de desarrollo de un sistema empresarial basado en un modelo entidad-relación.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE ZACHMAN FRAMEWORK? Extending the RUP with the Zachman Framework