The man, named only as Samuel K., is suspected of having been a guard at the camp between in 1942 and 1943 and of personally shooting dead several Jews, prosecutors in the western German city of Dortmund said.

He admitted being a guard at Belzec in German-occupied Poland in World War II but he denied being personally involved in killing people, according to the statement. No incriminating material was recovered in the raid.   MORE>>>

The Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk, an 89-year-old retired Ohio autoworker, is accused of serving as a low-level guard at the Nazi camp in occupied Poland and is charged with accessory to murder in 27,900 deaths. Demjanjuk rejects the charges, saying he never served in Sobibor or any other Nazi camp.

Sobibor survivor Philip Bialowitz told the Munich state court that Jews being brought from western Europe largely believed the Nazi ruse that they were being resettled and arrived at the camp relieved that their long journey was over.

The 84-year-old testified that he and other Jewish prisoners helped unload the trains, under the watch of German SS and Ukrainian guards. Music was played over loudspeakers to keep the atmosphere calm.

“When I helped the Jewish passengers with their bags, some of them offered me a tip,” said Bialowitz, who was born in Poland and now lives in New York. “My heart was bleeding because I knew that they would be dead in less than an hour and I couldn’t warn them.”

Bialowitz was the second Sobibor survivor to testify this week. Though neither he nor the other witness remember Demjanjuk from the camp, their testimony aims to give the court a general idea about how the camp operated.   MORE>>>

“America is Losing the Free World,” was the arresting headline over the Financial Times column by Gideon Rachman. His thesis:

The largest democracies of South America, Africa, the Middle Eastand Asia — Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, India — are all moving out of America’s orbit. “(T)he assumption that the democracies would stick together is proving unfounded.”

President Lula of Brazil has cut a “lucrative oil deal with China, spoken warmly of Hugo Chavez,” hailed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his election “victory” and honored the Iranian president with a state visit.

In the Security Council, South Africa sided with Russia and China in killing human rights resolutions and protecting Zimbabwe and Iran. Turkey has moved to engage Hezbollah, Hamas and Tehran, and spurnIsrael. Polls show anti-Americanism surging in Turkey. From trade to sanctions on Iran and Burma, India sides with China against America.

The ruling parties in all four were democratically elected. Yet, in all four, democratic solidarity is being trumped by an older solidarity — of Third World people of color against a “white, rich Western world.”

Writing in World Affairs, Geoffrey Wheatcroft quotes author Aaron David Miller (“The Much Too Promised Land”) that across the Middle East America is “not liked, not respected and not feared.”

What makes this “frightening,” says Wheatcroft, “is that many American politicians and commentators … have yet to grasp this reality. Such ignorance is evident in the bizarre notion — current even before George W. Bush took the oath of office — that America not only can and should spread democracy, but that this would be in the American national interest. Why did anyone think this?”

Asks Wheatcroft, “If the United States is not liked or respected throughout the Arab countries, why on earth would Americans want to democratize them?”

Excellent question. Some of us have been asking it of the democracy-uber-alles neoconservatives for decades. Yet, these democracy worshipers not only converted Bush, they demanded and got free elections inLebanon, the West Bank, Gaza and Egypt. Big winners — Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Wheatcroft quotes Eugene Rogan, who has written a history of the Arab peoples, that “in any free and fair election in the Arab world today, the Islamists would win hands down. … (T)he inconvenient truth about the Arab world today is that in any free election, those parties hostile to the United States are likely to win.”

Given free, inclusive elections in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, there is a likelihood our allies would be dumped and leaders chosen who were committed to kicking us out of the Middle East and throwing the Israelis into the Mediterranean.

What, then, is the rationale for the National Endowment for Democracy to continue tax dollars to promote such elections?

In “World on Fire,” Amy Chua writes that in Third World countries there is almost always a “market-dominant minority” — Indians in East Africa, whites in South Africa, overseas Chinese — which, in a free-market, attains higher levels of income and controls a disproportionate share of the wealth.

When democracy arrives, however, the racial, tribal or ethnic majority votes to dispossess these market-dominant minorities.

When colonialism ended in East Africa, Indians were massacred. The Chinese suffered a horrible pogrom inIndonesia in 1965, when the dictator Sukarno fell — and another when Suharto fell. Picked clean, two-thirds of the 250,000 whites in Rhodesia when Robert Mugabe took power are gone. Half the Boers and Brits have fled Jacob Zuma’s South Africa. In Bolivia, Evo Morales is dispossessing Europeans to reward the “indigenous people” who voted him into power. Chavez is doing the same in Venezuela.

Query: If democracy, from Latin America to Africa to the Middle East, brings to power parties and politicians who, for reasons religious, racial or historic, detest the “white, rich Western world,” why are we pushing democracy in these regions?

Our forefathers were not afflicted with this infantile disorder. John Winthrop, whose “city on a hill” inspiredRonald Reagan, declared that, among civil nations, “a democracy is … accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government.”

“Remember, democracy never lasts long,” said Adams. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Added Jefferson, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.” Madison agreed: “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”

The questions raised here are crucial.

If racial and religious bonds and ancient animosities against the West trump any democratic solidarity with the West, of what benefit to America is democracy in the Third World? And if one-person, one-vote democracy in multiethnic countries leads to dispossession and persecution of the market-dominant minority, why would we promote democracy there?

Why would we promote a system in an increasingly anti-American world that empowers enemies and imperils friends?

Is democratism our salvation — or an ideology of Western suicide?

Though the White House is on the defensive for its initial nonchalant response to al-Qaida’s attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day and has a need to show toughness, to dismiss Iran’s proposal out of hand may be a mistake.

For, bluster aside, this deal appears consistent with the twin U.S. goals: no nuclear-armed Iran, no war with Iran. Moreover, Iran’s take-it-or-leave-it deal is a variant on an idea first hatched by the White House — to offer Iran uranium that cannot be used for a bomb for the uranium Iran has been producing.

What would Iran give up? Part of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU), which if raised to weapons grade, would be sufficient for one or two nuclear devices.

What would Iran get? Fuel for a reactor that has been operating under U.N. safeguard and produces medical isotopes for the treatment of cancer and thyroid conditions. The rector’s fuel runs out in 2010.

What would America gain? First, a reduction in Iran’s uranium stockpile. Second, we would confirm that when we say we have no wish to prevent Iran’s peaceful use of nuclear power, we mean it. Third, we would deal cards to those in Tehran who argue, “We can do business with Obama.” Finally, the deal might put the United States and Iran on one of the last exit ramps before crippling sanctions lead to war.

Indeed, why change a policy that appears to be working?

Consider. Iran is today approaching regime crisis. Scores of thousands, unintimidated by the Basiji militia, have returned to the streets. Their demands have escalated from protesting a corrupt re-election of President Ahmadinejad to calls for the ouster of the Ayatollah and the overthrow of the Islamic regime.

While responding with brutality and threats of trials and death sentences, the regime has yet to go all-out for a Tiananmen Square solution.

Tehran knows that would destroy any lingering credibility it has. The Ayatollah Khamenei seems to be hesitant, uncertain as to whether to appease the resistance or crush it. For the demonstrators not only represent a huge slice of Iran’s educated young, they are likely to be Iran’s future, if Iran is to have a future as a modern nation.

While Obama has been savaged for not daily declaring solidarity with the resistance, his reticence may be the right stance.

White House declamations would be redundant. No one doubts whose side America is on.

Second, for President Obama to hail the demonstrators and denounce the regime would more likely contaminate the cause of the resistance than advance it.

It would be taken as confirmation of the regime’s charge that what is going on in the streets of Iran’s cities is a replay of the CIA rent-a-mob coup d’etat that took down nationalist Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and put the Shah on the throne.

And other developments are breaking our way.

According to Sunday’s New York Times, Iran’s production of low-enriched uranium at Natanz is running into problems. The number of operating centrifuges has fallen by 20 percent, to below 4,000. The centrifuges, based on first-generation technology, are breaking down. Others appear defective or sabotaged. There are reports that the low-enriched uranium at Natanz lacks the purity to be highly enriched.

Also, the U.S. revelation that Iran was constructing a secret nuclear-enrichment facility at a Revolutionary Guard base near the holy city of Qum has complicated Iran’s problems. Ahmadinejad opened it to U.N. inspectors, who found that it was months if not a year away from completion and capable of housing only 3,000 centrifuges.

Thus, it is either a small fallback production plant in case Natanz is bombed, or it was designed to convert the low-enriched uranium at Natanz into highly enriched weapons-grade uranium.

Iran’s problem now, if it is as hell-bent on building a bomb as U.S and Israeli politicians insist, is this. Its major nuclear facilities — the U.S.-built reactor at Arak, the uranium production plant at Natanz, the unfinished Russian nuclear power plant at Bushehr and the unfinished facility at Qum — are under U.N. safeguards and inspections.

If Tehran is as close to a bomb as some insist, it would have to have an undiscovered uranium-production plant the size of Natanz and an undiscovered but operational plant like the one being built in Qum to produce the highly enriched uranium needed.

If Iran has such facilities, U.S. intelligence agencies would not be standing by their joint assessment of 2007 that Iran ended its active program for a nuclear weapon back in 2003.

Right now, the cards are falling our way in Iran. Why toss in our hand for sanctions that lead — to where?

Amid the fervor over the nation’s first black president, few beyond the black media bothered to ask black Americans if they also felt the country had entered a new era. 

Most of us recall that Barack Obama beat John McCain handily. Few recall that he (like most recent Democratic presidential candidates) would have lost big-time if only white votes counted. A black friend who didn’t want to be named cynically told me that “white folks” only voted for Mr. Obama because they “decided things were so bad they would vote for the other guy even if he was black.”

Today the racial divide in Obama’s support is still stark, mirroring his voting support: 90 percent of blacks approve of his performance, while just 42 percent of whites do, according to Gallup. 

The brief honeymoon for “postracial America” evaporated last July in the altercation between black scholar Henry Louis Gates and white police officer James Crowley. When Obama weighed in on the incident at a press conference – saying the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” by arresting Gates – he picked a scab off our national scar.

For African-Americans, “Gatesgate” was a reminder of two realities: the past and present harassment of black men by white police officers, and the centrality of incarceration to black life in America. Too many whites interpreted it as another uppity black man sassing a white policeman, threatening law and order and white comfort levels. 

The Gates affair showed how each of us tends to remain locked in our racial preconceptions, perhaps because it is too painful to let them go and admit we were wrong. The same friend told me, “We want to hang on to our own stories rather than acknowledge our own fears and insecurities.”

One preconception white Americans should relinquish is the myth that black Americans are enamored of Obama. Yes, 95 percent voted for him, and 9 in 10 tell pollsters they approve of his job, but those figures are a mile wide and an inch deep. 

Black America sometimes seems as critical of our black president as are right-wing Republicans. 

During the campaign, some blacks questioned Obama’s capacity to identify with the African-American community, given his lack of slave roots. Today, many more blacks are openly questioning Obama’s commitment to the black community.

At the Black Agenda Report, Solomon Comissiong wrote: “Barack Obama’s presidency has seen a continuation of many of the Bush administration’s repugnant policies…. [He] has been horribly bad for black America…. He trivialized blacks’ day to day struggles, and their historical quest for human rights.” Shocked? Don’t be. It’s not just a black fringe that is disenchanted. 

The Congressional Black Caucus has been sharply critical of the president in recent weeks for not doing enough to help blacks. Their frustration is understandable. While the national jobless rate hovers around 10 percent, it’s half again higher for blacks. 

Publicly, Obama has responded by saying, for example, “I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks. I’m the president of the entire United States.” Privately, he appears stung by the criticism. A few weeks ago, Obama called John Conyers (D) of Michigan to ask the longtime black lawmaker and frequent critic to stop “demeaning” him. 

In one sense, black criticism of Obama shows how much progress he has made in moving America toward a postracial society. He hasn’t scared away white folks by talking too much about race. He conducts himself with dignity and eloquence in the face of overwhelming obstacles. And he governs as president of the entire country, not just a racial bloc. 

A year later, the idea of a postracial America is not a reality, but it’s not a fantasy, either. 

“A lot of Americans were quick to embrace the idea of a postracial America because it would mean they wouldn’t have to talk about race anymore,” says Lynne Adrine, a black career and life coach. “We still want to avoid the conversation because we are still so screwed up on the racial issue.”

Perhaps, but we’re all still better off because Obama convinced black Americans they have a huge stake in the government. As Ms. Adrine put it, “Like any other relationship, you have to go through the hard part to get to a better place.”

Israel complained that the practice, spearheaded by pro-Palestinian activists, is harming relations, and Britain’s visiting attorney general said an urgent solution must be found.

The Israelis called off their trip because their British army hosts could not guarantee they would not be arrested, the Israeli officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Neither the Israeli military nor the British government would comment.   MORE>>>

Four months ago Israel threatened legal action against a Swedish newspaper which published claims that Israeli soldiers had killed Palestinians to harvest their organs.

But now, Israeli television has broadcast part of an interview with the former head of Israel’s Abu Kabir forensic institute who has acknowledged pathologists did harvest heart valves, skin, corneas and bones from Israeli soldiers and civilians, Palestinians and foreign workers.

Responding to the TV interview, the Israeli military confirmed the practice took place, but said it ended in 2000.

There is no evidence to support the Swedish claim that Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians expressly for their organs.   SOURCE>>>

About 700 people — including pagans and druids — saw the sun rise at the ancient rocks near Salisbury, England.

Peter Carson, Stonehenge’s director, said it “was really looking picture-postcard perfect.”

Carson said winter solstice can fall between Dec. 20 and 23. He said this year, winter solstice came after the sun set on Dec. 21, making Tuesday the shortest day of the year.   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_winter_solstice;_ylt=AjOEnO3300VVr4OWa6wlqAOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpMWZzYnF2BHBvcwMzOQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDZHJ1aWRzcGFnYW5z

The Northern California store lost approximately 40 employees overnight and in place of the employees Target was presented with a legal wrangle by La Raza Centro Legal guru, Rocio Avila who is now representing the illegal immigrants.

A spokesperson from Target, Kate Gillen explained the employees had an opportunity to prove their eligibility in order to continue working, however most resigned without incident.

It seems La Raza is questioning Target’s rational behind the move to request legal documents. It’s worth pointing out that it is unlawful for employers and illegal immigrants to enter the workforce without proper identification and work papers.

However, La Raza contends Target is simply targeting illegal workers in an effort continue its practice of racial profiling. Many anti-illegal immigration activists are calling the action by La Raza attorney absurd and believe any court that tries to circumvent the laws of the United States should be held accountable.

Many in the country are happy that large companies like Target are taking the initiative to clear all workers ensuring legal residents have the opportunity to work, especially in California where the unemployment rate hovers around the 12 percent mark.   MORE>>>