The mandate by the Obama administration that contraception must be provided by the medical plans of religious hospitals and schools even if contrary to their religious doctrine may influence the Supreme Court’s decisions on ObamaCare.

On a fundamental level, the mandate exhibits the intrusiveness of Obamacare into aspects of private belief, its practice, and freedom of choice. This is at the heart of the portion of the Supreme Court’s deliberations into Obamacare’s individual mandate to buy medical insurance or be fined. The issue is whether Congress exceeded its federal powers.

The intrusiveness of the individual mandate into private rights may or not be held by the Supreme Court to be inextricably linked to whether all or some of ObamaCare should be struck down. The Obama administration brief says that only the guaranteed enrollment and community-rating provisions of ObamaCare may be affected. However, the contraception mandate under the Obamacare requirement to provide preventive and wellness care exhibits the wider impact of Obamacare’s intrusion into private choices.

Until the hearings it cannot be known whether contending counsel will raise the issue of the contraception mandate or whether a Supreme Court justice will. Still, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be on the minds of one or more Supreme Court justices in reaching their decisions.

It has been pointed out that six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Catholic. It is speculative as to how that may affect their judgments. It is interesting to note, however, that a Jewish justice, Elena Kagan, concurring (with justice Alito) to the unanimous decision in the Hosanna-Tabor case upholding the “ministerial” exemption from EEOC, says, “…-it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws.” Although the Hosanna-Tabor case entails differing discrete matters of law, Kagan’s expressed understanding there of a correct limit to federal power may be reflected in her or other justices’ considerations.

The Supreme Court has waffled back and forth on whether there should be a dividing line between faith and practice, most recently finding for a division if there is a compelling state interest. The Obama administration’s argument, in both the ObamaCare hearings and in the contraception mandate, is that there is a compelling state interest in intruding into the choices of private people or entities. The Hosanna-Tabor decision may indicate that the majority of Supreme Court justices will find otherwise.

The contraception mandate cannot have helped the case for ObamaCare, and may abort ObamaCare.

P.S.: Michelle Malkin's column is worth the read. So is this Los Angeles Times analysis, "Contraceptive mandate could face tough sledding in Supreme Court."

The killings at Haditha in November 2005 were blown up by opponents of the US in Iraq into an indictment of the US and its troops. This onslaught sapped the will of many Americans. The following rules of engagement and the drawn out prosecution of the Marines involved have undermined the morale and endangered the lives of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Take the premise that at Haditha both the Marines and those who were killed in houses 1 and 2 were correct in their own view. The long term losers are both US troops and noncombatants.

Both Marines and US troops generally are at increased risk due to perhaps understandable rules of engagement that in practice are often excessive and dangerous. Noncombatants are at increased risk of oppression, or more impersonal death from US technology, in countries where thuggish foes seek domination and can serve as refuges for further attacks on the West.

Haditha was a decidedly treacherous town overrun with Al Quaeda led foes who blew up Marines in the convoy and fired on the survivors from the nearby houses. What else could the Marines do but attack and eliminate the threat from the houses? Walking in, exposing themself to harm, would have been suicidal. Those inside lived in fear of the insurgents, who had already executed the local police force, and were aware that an IED was to be exploded. What else could they do but huddle inside? Warning the Marines beforehand would have exposed themselves to extermination. Walking outside, hands up, after the attack on the Marines, may have been a good move, but they knew gunmen were nearby and they didn’t want to be in the middle of a shootout.

Frank Wuterich agreed this morning to accept a prosecution offer of pleading guilty to one count of dereliction of duty, with relatively minor penalty. “Dereliction of duty” is such a broad count that it can cover most anything, and in possible multiple counts possible in the court martial, could have resulted in Wuterich facing much heavier penalties.

This ends his 7-year ordeal at the hand of zealot prosecutors and rush to judgment media. The prosecution in this case, as in all its others, saw its own witnesses either basically testify for the defense or be demonstrated as liars or otherwise unreliable.

Still, Frank Wuterich, as any defendant, faced the possibility of a worse outcome, what is commonly referred to as “litigation risk.” With not just himself but three young daughters to care about, weighed against the honor of the Marine Corps (although including some who may have acted less than completely honorably in this case), Wuterich’s decision is completely understandable.

As usual, Mark Walker’s report, intimate with all the Haditha cases, covers the salient points:

The Associated Press reports the most extensive study yet of whether engaging in sex causes heart attacks.

In its first science-based recommendations on the subject, the American Heart Association says having sex only slightly raises the chance for a heart attack. And that's true for people with and without heart disease.

Surprisingly, despite the higher risk for a heart patient to have a second attack, there's no evidence that they have more sex-related heart attacks than people without cardiac disease.

However,

The doctors' group offers advice for heart patients based on scientific research involving sometimes provocative sex-related topics:

—Who's most at risk for sudden death related to sex? Married men having affairs, often with younger women in unfamiliar settings. Those circumstances can add to stress that may increase the risks, evidence from a handful of studies suggests.

Still, “sexual activity is the cause of less than 1 percent of all heart attacks," says the lead author of the report.

Another good reason to be part of the 1%?

Nat Helms at Defend Our Marines and Tony Perry at the Los Angeles Times, both able reporters of the Haditha prosecutions, have similar stories up about the choice that Frank Wuterich must make tonight. As Perry puts it, “This could be the longest night of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich’s life since he became a defendant in arguably the largest war-crime case from the war in Iraq.” Helms brings in the deeper meaning: “The 31-year-old father of three can bite the proverbial bullet and ask for administrative separation, or he can dig in his heels and fight for the principles he has already proved he is willing to die for.”

Admittance to a minor charge and an administrative separation, meaning under less than honorable conditions, means that Wuterich would lose veterans benefits and carry on his record a crime. On the other hand, as Perry says, “But if he decides to continue fighting the charges against him  -- manslaughter, assault and dereliction of duty  --  he could end up with a conviction on one or more of the counts,  which would also bring a discharge under less than honorable grounds.” And, possibly, prison time.

But, Perry continues,.

After last week’s prosecution witnesses in the court martial of Frank Wuterich finished up, I was ready to write that they sounded more like prosecution witnesses testifying for the defense. It appears that the prosecution seeing its case collapse, as it has against the other Haditha Marines, may be ready to virtually throw in the towel.

In the middle of a Haditha Marine’s testimony today, the proceeding was halted, for the prosecution and defense to possibly negotiate a settlement of the case. A reporter at the court martial who for years has been a prime reliable source throughout the Haditha prosecutions writes,

With government witnesses waiting to testify, the military judge overseeing the proceedings at Camp Pendleton announced Wednesday afternoon that the trial was on hold while prosecutors and Wuterich's attorneys "explore options" and "go ahead with negotiations."

The judge, Lt. Col. David Jones, also informed the two sides that he was available for consultation if needed.

The sudden disruption in the trial is a strong signal that an agreement that would resolve the case was being discussed. A deal would end the last major war crimes trial arising from the Iraq war.

A source close to the case who spoke on the condition their name not be used confirmed discussions were ongoing.

Attorneys for Wuterich, a Murrieta father of three young girls, declined to comment Wednesday. Prosecutors are forbidden by Marine Corps policy from commenting.

A possible resolution could involve a guilty plea to a minor charge in exchange for manslaughter charges being dropped and little or no punishment.

Captain Pete Hegseth, US Army, has served at Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan, and was Executive Director of Vets For Freedom to support our troops and missions. No weak sister.

During his current deployment in Afghanistan, Hegseth has sent email letters home to those on his mailing list. His most recent arrived today, "Endgame in Afghanistan."  It is near 4-thousand words long, so I have put it below the fold. Hegseth is not optimistic, stripping away what he refers to as "wishful thinking."

This isn’t to say that we couldn’t affect a more advantageous outcome for the United States; of course if we got rid of the 2014 withdrawal deadline completely, were willing to truly remove Taliban and Haqqani safe-havens in Pakistan (we know where they are!), and purged the Afghan government of its most corrupt nodes we could “change the game” of this conflict. But for various reasons—be they domestic politics, a nuclear-armed Pakistan (a lesson for Iran, I would suggest), and a trepidation with undermining corrosive “Afghan sovereignty”—it is highly unlikely we will make the hard choices necessary to level the playing field. A bad outcome in Afghanistan isn’t inevitable, but in light of current realities, it is likely.

 

He believes this battleground is "central to defending the United States."

In the realm of perception and international opinion it is still very important; how we “finish” in Afghanistan will send strong signals to the rest of the world about whether we finish what we start. Recent events in Iraq make this plainly clear. However, the question is whether the cost in Afghanistan is worth the outcome?  As my British colleague says, “is the juice worth the squeeze?”  I think seeing this through, while gradually drawing down, is worth doing.

According to defense analyst Anthony Cordesman the US will need to spend about $10-billion a year for the next 14-years to stand a chance of stabilizing Afghanistan.

We do not need more good intentions and vague promises from the Obama administration. We do not need a vacuous set of positions from Republican presidential candidates who either do not understand the issues or fear addressing their cost. If the United States is to make this commitment we need to start making it now in every part of our posture and spending in Afghanistan — and be clear that we will do so through 2025. If not, we need to be honest about the consequences for some 30 million Afghans and their country.

There's so much detail and stark facts in Hegseth's email that you would be remiss to not read on.

A little old lady’s phone rings. She answers, “Hello.”
The man on the line says, “You don’t know me, but I know you’d love me to come to your door, take you in my arms, kiss you, undress you, love your body.”
The little old lady says, “All this you get from ‘Hello’?!

The usual leftists or armchair warriors eager to gratify leftist memes to get into print are writing all sorts of word-salads about how a few Marines pissing on some dead Taliban provides deep meaning into war, morality, training, geopolitics, history, and so on.

Bullshit on the phone, or a pissing of pixels.

Vietnam vets and, finally, truth won out. So, witness today's attempt to dehumanize and disparage our troops. Maggots keep crawling and trying to devour honor. Next time they need a Marine, instead call a fellow columnist.

The reporting of the court martial of Frank Wuterich’s actions in 2005 at Haditha fails to adequately explain the background of the specific charges and, also, the standards of evidence that must be met. Without that crucial information, the reader of daily news reports is likely justifiably confused. The news reports are being more circumspect than previously in parroting accusations of willful massacre. But, major media reports are mostly cherry-picking comments from prosecution witnesses, briefly passing over defense cross-examination, and most importantly not presenting the crucial context of the testimony and examinations.

The core issues in the court martial are whether beyond a reasonable doubt Frank Wuterich acted (1) with dereliction of duty to not obey rules of engagement, (2) leading to his own actions and command culpability for negligent homicide in the deaths at Haditha that otherwise would have been avoided. These are reductions of charges from the original charges of murder against Frank Wuterich. Several other charges were thrown out in opening motions at the court martial.

These key points were examined in Frank Wuterich’s Article 32 proceeding. An Article 32 hearing is comparable to a preliminary hearing in civilian law, with even broader latitude in searching for whether there is cause to proceed to a court martial trial. In an Article 32 hearing, the standard is reasonable doubt. In a court martial, generally following civilian federal trial guidelines, the higher standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The Article 32 hearing officer concluded   that the throw-the-sink, murder charges brought by the prosecution were excessive to the standard of reasonable doubt, and that a key prosecution witness granted immunity – then Corporal, now Sergeant, Sanick Dela Cruz -- was not credible, his story changing multiple times.

Excerpts from an interview in Private Wealth magazine:

From his perch at The Wall Street Journal, Robert Frank has become one of the nation’s leading chroniclers of the 1%. He has been the newspaper’s wealth reporter for eight years, writing about the lives, culture, economy, spending and investing of the wealthy....

Frank: To a degree, there has always been churn in the world of wealth. Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called it “creative destruction,” where one sector of the economy replaces another because of business and product cycles. But the cycles of wealth are now far more rapid, extreme and frequent. The old saying used to be “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves” in three generations. Now it can happen in three years.

Before the 1980s, the top 1% used to be the flat line on the income charts—rising and falling less than the rest of America during economic cycles. Suddenly, in the early 1980s—1982 to be exact—the 1% started jumping off the charts, soaring far higher than the rest of the country during good times and crashing harder during recessions. They became like the binge drinkers of the economy....

 First, more fortunes are tied to the stock market. The Dow Jones rose from under 1,000 in 1981 to 11,000 and change today. That fueled the creation of the largest number of new millionaires and billionaires ever in America, with the rise of stock-based pay—and entrepreneurs who started and sold companies, either through IPOs or mergers. Those fortunes, however, are far less stable, since the stock market is up to 20 times more volatile than overall economic growth.

The second reason is debt. The debt levels of the top 1% increased more than threefold since the 1980s, and many of the rich loaded that debt pile onto speculative bubbles or paper wealth. Leverage can be deadly, no matter how much you think is “manageable.”

The third reason is spending. Some of the wealthy went overboard with homes, cars, yachts, planes, vacations, handbags, shoes and other luxury goods because they thought they could afford it. As it turned out, many looked rich but were actually living one crisis away from financial collapse. Some of the wealth of the past decade was a mirage.

The wealthy are a more diverse group than ever, and on the subject of taxes, they’re as divided as the rest of the country. By sticking to this rich-get-richer narrative, the country may be missing the real danger, which is that we’re more dependent than ever before on a group that is highly unstable.

Prince: So what’s the solution?
Frank: That was the hardest question to answer in the book. To solve the problem of high-beta wealth you have to roll back all the forces that have created inequality. You’d have to roll back all the recent advances in technology, you’d have to roll back globalization and you’d have to somehow wipe out most of the financial markets around the world. Not going to happen. So the practical solution is to better prepare for these wealth and income shocks. Governments need to create bigger, more robust rainy day funds that they can fill during good times and drain down during crises. As consumers and workers, we need to save more, spend less and borrow less to survive these cycles. And for those who aspire to be wealthly, they need to take money off the table as they’re on the way up and use debt sparingly. You can’t get around risk if you want to get rich today. But you can manage those risks and price it more intelligently....

And in a high-beta world, wealth no longer ensures stability and security in your life. What really matters in this world is doing something you love, having strong connections to family and friends, and making a contribution to your community or the world at large.

To now, Ron Paul has been given prominence due to his poll results. Libertarianism and restraint in foreign involvements appeals to many Republicans as well as to others disillusioned by the overstepping of federal intrusions into our lives and the often bumbling and always difficult implementation of foreign policies. But, Ron Paul is not the answer. Indeed, his simplistic and conspiratorial utterances, his views shared by those who most actively oppose or attack the United States and its allies, place him beyond any pale. This ad takes his foreign policies head on:

Or, Glenn Beck reveals the committee Paul formed with Barney Frank, of all people, to reorganize defense with a $1 trillion cut: 11 out of 14 are funded by George Soros!  Oh yeah, Paul has his head screwed on, backwards.

At Minding The Campus, Brooklyn College history professor KC Johnson presents the devastating critiques, from venues venerated by the left,  of leftist Brooklyn College Political Science professor Corey Robin's book about conservatives.

As KC Johnson concludes:

Fifty years ago, academics frequently migrated in and out political life. Now, with the exceptions of a handful of fields (data-dependent economics; faculty from schools of law, business, or medicine, whose curricula are set in part by forces outside the academy), it's all but inconceivable to imagine professors whose views reflect the basic assumptions of their respective disciplines serving in responsible government positions. Indeed, with occasional exceptions (such as political scientists Brendan Nyhan or Jonathan Bernstein), it's hard to imagine academics outside of economics, the law, and medicine having much interesting to say about politics.

I suspect that most members of the majority viewpoint on today's campuses are willing to make the trade, firming up their power within the academy in exchange for losing virtually all influence in the public square. Whether society benefits from this exchange is another matter.

I nominated Corey Robin for leftist quote of the day. In short, Robin is a bird too commonly found in the professorate of US colleges.

When driving or flying an airplane, or on patrol, never get fixated on one point. Keep your eyes moving across the landscape. Here's an illustration.

Instead of staring at the center dot, keep your eyes rotating circularly around the three outside dots. See what a difference that makes.

Works for life, too: don't get fixated. You'll miss too much.

Another year is over of Bird Dog dragging you to a museum or a show in Manhattan. Now, for a quick tour of the San Diego area...where the betters live better.

Friends are visiting from New York for a few days. They’re staying in the downtown Gaslamp.

This used to be the area south of Market full of strip joints, seedy bars, and such. Over the past twenty years it has become a magnet of fine restaurants, dance clubs, fancy hotels, with the huge Convention Center along the bay, next to the excellent sightlines from every seat Petco ball park. San Diego's costs are a fraction of New York’s. My friend is an expert on the Near East. They had dinner Thursday night at an Afghani restaurant, which they both said was some of the best they’d had from that part of the world. The weather this week: 70F+ and sunny.

Yesterday, I took them to Old Town, several acres of authenticish early Spanish and Anglo San Diego...

(Lots more of a tour of lovely San Diego below the fold)

A California State University, Northridge, economics professor maintains a website devoted to promoting sex-tourism in Thailand. The loud denunciations on campus pressured him to take the off-campus website down. Meanwhile, a vile anti-Semitic website is maintained by a CalState, Northridge. math professor, using the university’s own server, and contrary to university regulations it is OKd as “free speech” by the university’s president, retiring this month.

The Manhattan Institute’s City Journal carries my “Cal State’s Chutzpah,” labeling it a “hypocritical university.” This is an update on my post December 6, “Looking Away From Hate At California State University.”

The Chancellor of the California State University system, Charles Reed, fails to weigh in on the side of decency or academic standards or rules, but appoints as interim president the CSUN Provost who signed the math professor’s November letter to the Chancellor that study abroad should not be allowed in Israel. The letter levies charges against Israel (debunked by the reply from Scholars for Peace in the Middle East) not applied to any other democratic nation. This is anti-Semitism, according to the European Union’s Working Definition of anti-Semitism.

At CalState’s sister public university system, University of California, Mark Yudof, president of the University of California system, also pussy-foots around confronting the rife anti-Semitism at U of C campuses. His evasions are discussed here at Maggie’s Farm and in a shorter version at New Criterion.

These are both taxpayer-supported public university systems. Neither wants to do the legal or decent thing in fear of the pro-Palestinian/leftist faculty members who wield predominant power on campuses. Such callow anti-Semitism would be condemned if at a private company, and the malefactors terminated. Continued exposure is necessary if our public universities are to meet standards applicable elsewhere throughout America.

My City Journal article is below the fold. But, please go to City Journal’s “CalState’s Chutzpah” to read it, to demonstrate that Maggie’s Farmers are smarter and more decent than California’s irresponsible and hypocritical public university administrators.

BTW: Keep your eye on the City Journal website for the Winter edition, out soon. Sure to be jam packed with erudite and informative goodies, as always. Needless to say, I'm grateful to its editors for seeing the importance of the scandalous behavior of California's top public college administrators, and honored to be included among City Journal's contributors.

From Peoples Cube, 2007

How did the ancient mass media report the alleged birth of Christ? The People's Cube prepared the following compilation of quotes from the Roman and Judean sources, which should help our readers to form an unbiased opinion of what really happened in the days surrounding the so-called Christmas...

More at the link above.

Semper Fi, wherever, whenever, whatever. Those who try to denigrate stalwart service, who can only nitpick from the comfort of armchairs, can go to hell.

On December 15, 1944, the desperate German army launched its surprise Ardennes Offensive, otherwise known as the Battle of the Bulge, to reach Antwerp and interrupt Allied supplies. Allied control of the Belgian town of Bastogne was an obstacle to the German tank advance. In the coldest winter, without supplies being able to reach them, the small American force led by the 101st Airborne held out. The battle is described here. There were many heroes among the US forces. There was, also, another hero, a nurse, born in the Congo. Here's the story:

A Belgian nurse who saved the lives of hundreds of American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge at the end of World War II was given a U.S. award for valor Monday — 67 years late.

Congolese-born Augusta Chiwy, now 93, received the Civilian Award for Humanitarian Service medal from U.S. Ambassador Howard Gutman at a ceremony in the military museum in Brussels.

"She helped, she helped, and she helped," Gutman said at the ceremony. He said the long delay in presenting the award was because it was assumed that Chiwy had been killed when a bomb destroyed her hospital.

The Battle of the Bulge was a ferocious encounter in the final stages of World War II. In desperation, Adolf Hitler ordered a massive attack on allied forces in the Ardennes, in southern Belgium. More than 80,000 American soldiers were killed, captured or wounded.

Chiwy had volunteered to assist in an aid station in the town of Bastogne, where wounded and dying U.S. soldiers in their thousands were being treated by a single doctor in December 1944 and January 1945. Chiwy braved the gunfire, helping whoever she could, and saving the lives of hundreds of American GIs.

The Nazis hoped the surprise attack would reach the sea at the Belgian port of Antwerp and cut off the advancing allied armies. Bastogne, a market town that was also a critical road junction, was quickly besieged.

AP

Belgian nurse Augusta Chiwy, center, who saved hundreds of wounded GIs during the WWII Battle of the Bulge, receives an award for valor from the U.S. Army, in Brussels, Monday, Dec. 12, 2011. The U.S. ambassador says there was a 67-year delay in presenting the award because it was assumed that Augusta Chiwy had herself perished in the battle. (AP Photo/Yves Logghe)

The U.S. troops — led by paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division — found themselves surrounded. But they resisted fiercely, and the key crossroads was never taken.

During the battle, Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, the 101st's acting division commander, delivered his famous reply to a German surrender demand when he scribbled: "To the German commander: Nuts! The American commander." In the ensuing siege, Bastogne was heavily shelled and quickly reduced to ruins. Another Belgian nurse — Chiwy's friend Renee Lemaire — was killed along with about 30 patients when a bomb penetrated a cellar where she was tending to the wounded.

Gutman said the diminutive Chiwy combed battlefields during the battle, often coming under enemy fire, to collect the wounded in the deep snow. "What I did was very normal," Chiwy said during the ceremony. "I would have done it for anyone. We are all children of God."

But Col. J.P. McGee, who commands a brigade of the 101st Airborne Division based in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, said that to the wounded soldiers Chiwy was "a goddess."

"Men lived and families were reunited due to your efforts," he said. McGee said the army's doctor in Bastogne, John Prior, had joked that the German snipers couldn't hit Chiwy because she was so tiny. But Chiwy, who moved to Belgium from the colony of Congo before the war, responded that they were just bad shots. Historian Alexander Omhof, who has dealt extensively with the history of the allied advance, also praised Chiwy's deeds during the month-long battle. Chiwy then received a letter of appreciation from Gen. David Petraeus, himself a former commander of the 101st Airborne.

After the battle, Chiwy slipped into obscurity, working as a hospital nurse treating spinal injuries. She married a Belgian soldier and had two children. She was finally located several years ago by a British author and historian, Martin King, who had heard stories about a black nurse at Bastogne.

Chiwy was knighted by the Belgian king in June.

I was listening to All Things Considered on the car radio and heard this very beautiful, haunting Franz Schubert song, "Hurdy-Gurdy Man" in English, a Hurdy-Gurdy Man playing a stringed instrument to attract attention to his wares or to get charity. On the show, it was recommended by a son remembering his father trudging 10-miles through cold and snow to a menial job to put food on the table. The Youtube has the English translation.

There are many who are unfortunate through little fault of their own. In this season of extra giving, it is well to remember them and donate to worthy charities that help them.

The All Things Considered story is worth the read.

In World War II, the United States did not have clear postwar goals for Eastern Europe. The brunt of this meant Eastern Europe suffered as Soviet satellites for almost half a century. The illusion of President Roosevelt about Stalin bears substantial responsibility.

The US held a moral stance toward eliminating Germany’s Nazi leadership and German rule over Europe. But, aside from desires, the US placed its eggs in the basket of a better postwar relationship with Stalin, rather than the freedom of Eastern Europe.

During the war, President Roosevelt had to deal with Churchill, who had a closer and clearer appreciation of the impact in Central and Eastern Europe of potential Soviet domination. But Roosevelt largely overrode Churchill. Roosevelt chose to deal with the paranoia of Stalin that (like Stalin had in 1939) the US and England would strike a deal with Germany short of its utter defeat. To the very end of his life, Roosevelt vainly believed, with vanity, that accommodating Stalin would yield trust and improved post-war relations. The fate of other peoples was secondary.

An illustration of Roosevelt’s haphazard policy making occurred at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943.

In case you are worried, or if you were not planning to vote in next year's elections because the world is going to end anyway, guess what?

Mayans never predicted world to end in 2012: experts

Of the the approximately 15,000 registered glyphic texts found in different parts of what was then the Mayan empire, only two mention 2012, the Institute said.

"The Maya did not think about humanity, global warming or predict the poles would fuse together," said Alfonso Ladena, a professor from the Complutense University of Madrid. "We project our worries on them."