As the speech begins, African Twitter users are having fun translating Obama's trademark phrase, “Yes We Can” into different African languages. From Kenya, afromusing starts the trend with Swahili:

dnashong, originally from Ghana, shares more ways to say we can:

kaysha remarks upon Africa's need for a figure like Obama:

dnashong responds:

He then corrects himself to say “you know I should've said Africa's new leaders. I mean US!”

Malagasy lrakoto admits his excitement for Obama's reactions:

Although it goes without saying that non-U.S. citizens have a number of reasons for their interest in the U.S. elections, Trinidadian nplaughlin puts it best when he says:

Bahraini amiraalhussaini quips:

Finally, Nigerian kuikihoro seems disappointed that Obama's speech ended so quickly:

The first hot topic of the evening was former Vice President and Nobel prize winner Al Gore's speech. Much of the conversation surrounded the odd choice of “Let the Sunshine In” as Gore's entrance and exit music. From Trinidad, georgiap quipped:

Brazilian danielduende was also amused by the choice:

Kenyan afromusing, live-tweeting the DNC, says:

Canadian doshdosh remarks upon Obama's campaign strategies during the DNC:

As the clock nears 10:00 EST, Danish-Puerto Rican solanasaurus sends word from the DNC:

Just prior to Obama's entrance, Trinidadian nplaughlin queries:

Driving the message home that the U.S. election has truly become global, Taiwanese tweeter leonardchien remarks:

Via / Awearness Blog

Morgan Spurlock and his fiancée Alex leave their fabulous New York lifestyles behind for the heart of the Midwest, Columbus, Ohio. Morgan and Alex work at multiple minimum wage jobs for 30 days earning $5.15 per hour. They get to experience first hand the struggles minimum wage earning families face as Morgan’s niece and nephew come to live with them

His latest documentary emerged because his wife was pregnant and he wanted to make the world a safer place by finding Osama Bin Laden, the worlds most wanted man. He does this by flying to Egypt, Afghanistan, Jordan, Saudia Arabia and Pakistan talking to regular people as well as those with ties to terrorism about Bin Laden as well as the “War on Terror.” A few facts from the documentary:

1. Some Muslims believe that America wants to eradicate Islam
2. There were 13720 terrorist attacks in 2007, a significant increase since America invaded Iraq
3. The majority of Muslim people do not support Al-Qaeda

I really enjoyed this documentary because it was enlightening while mixing up those serious moments with moments of humor. It can be purchased from Amazon.com for $16.99 if you haven’t seen it in the theater’s otherwise alternatively you can buy the book.  If you have enough to read, the documentary is just over 90 minutes which flies by quite quickly, an 8/10 on my personal ten point scale.

Since 9/11 her life and the lives of many innocent Arabs, Muslims, Afghans and Pakistanis within the USA changed for the worse, when the USA began shamelessly discriminating, arresting, and even torturing innocent civilians under the false premise of “national security.” Innocent people were undergoing severe torture simply for being “suspects” of terrorism.

According to a BBC article from earlier this month:

Research at the time refused to turn up anything on the status of Aafia Siddiqui - she was not listed as wanted by any federal or Pakistani agency.

At that point, it seemed she had vanished off the face of the earth.

Siddiqui comes from a very well established and educated family, and from what I have been reading, she is seemingly open minded. She even wanted her children to be raised and educated in the USA, which led to disputes with her husband, also a Pakistani who was arrested and questioned by the FBI for buying goggles and some military manuals. Here is her familial background:

Her brother is an architect based in Houston, while Fauzia [her sister] is a neurologist who used to work at Mount Sinai hospital in New York.

Aafia Siddiqui went to school in Karachi and graduated with a biology degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US.

Keep in mind that the claims below are nothing but that; baseless claims, and has yet to be evidenced by something other than FBI gossip. Comments within brackets are my own:

In 2004 then-FBI director Robert Mueller announced at a press conference that Aafia Siddiqui was wanted for questioning.

She was later named as part of an alleged al-Qaeda diamond smuggling operation in Liberia. [Because an established neurologist with an MIT degree and three children has enough free time on her hands to organize terrorist movements in Liberia.] Publications such as Newsweek quoted the FBI as saying this was to finance al-Qaeda’s biological and chemical weapons programme.

After that, her name remained on the list of disappeared - until she surfaced last month in Afghanistan in US military custody.

[…]

“It is always believed one is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round,” her sister, Fauzia, told reporters in Karachi on Tuesday.

She added that every time she had met US officials, they had said they had never formally accused Aafia Siddiqui of being a terrorist [but arrested and tortured her anyways!]

The article concludes with what is pretty much her only crime:

The answer may lie in her relationship with the family of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Aafia Siddiqui is said to have married Ali Abd’al Aziz Ali, one of his nephews following her divorce. Although her family denies this, the BBC has been able to confirm it from security sources and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s family.

It is an open secret in Karachi, that any member of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s family deemed to be “a 1% threat to US security” is in American custody.

That may be the only “crime” that Aafia Siddiqui has committed.

No evidence of anything else but a romantic link. No record of terrorism or abuse. No proof of her “terrorist activities” whatsoever. She is from an educated family, she has never harmed the USA, she has never committed a crime, and her only supposed link to “terrorism” is her marriage to a “nephew” of whom the USA considers to be a terrorist.

Shame on the U.S government, and to all U.S officials who knew about the injustice of this but remained silent.

This is one of MANY hypocracies when it comes to the USA preaching “democracy and human rights” to countries like Pakistan and the greater Muslim world, especially under this disgusting administration which has ruined and ended the lives of millions of innocent people.

Free Aafia Siddiqui right now, and all your other innocent “suspects.”

Here is the story from Denver ,Colorado With photos.

The FBI is called to investigate the matter.

Here is the story from MSNBC.

I will not say that I am surprised ,in fact this is so expected in a country like America where still Black students can’t sit down under a tree because it is for the Whites “Jenna Six”  !!!

Update (from S Husseini):
Background: Biden's Iraq record August 23, 2008 — recall the Dems had the Senate then, so he was head of Foreign Relations –
Biden questioned about Ritter charges
Biden questioned on Iraq oil law, January 22, 2007
Longer clips

“Joe Biden just held a conference call with reporters to “clarify a couple of things” about his Iraq plan, an endorsement of which was passed last week by the Senate as a non-binding resolution (the Biden-Brownback Iraq Federalism Amendment). It passed by a vote of 75-23, with substantial bi-partisan support. Senator Biden is angry at Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, whose embassy issued an unusual (and unsigned) statement criticizing the resolution. By doing so, the ambassador (and his superiors in Washington who no doubt authorized the statement) was adding his voice to that of Prime Minister al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders, all of whom complained that the kind of federalism called for in the resolution would lead to more sectarian violence and result in the bloody partition of the country. “It is not partition! It is not foreign imposition!” declared an amped-up Biden, over what sounded like a cell phone, while on break from campaigning in South Carolina. “It will not lead, as Prime Minister Maliki said, to more violence and bloodshed. I wonder what he thinks is happening now, by the way.”" Biden: Quit Lying About My Partition Plan! October 1, 2007
“Sen. Barack Obama vowed Wednesday that Jerusalem must “remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
“Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.
“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” Obama said.”
Obama addresses rumors at pro-Israel conference June 4, 2008

Update: Comment by Maddi:

“So, are you FOR Obama and Biden like I am — OR — GOD FORBID — the other side?
# posted by maddi (below): August 24, 2008 2:36 AM

The other side, which would hopefully accelerate the demise of the US Empire.
Bush has done quite a remarkable job of it so far.
I had favored his nomination 4 years ago, for just the above reason.
Poor Americans, to have to suffer this fate.”
Imad Khadduri
For example: Dick Morris: “We’re in Iraq as a result of a democracy asking for us to come in there.” August 23, 2003

Let me say that I harbor no resentment over the actions of Israel's leaders. For more than 60 years, they have knowingly made their country a pariah in the Arab and Islamic worlds, just as the Palestinians have made themselves pariahs in much of the West. This is, of course, the right of both parties, but neither seems to want to face the consequences of their decisions. With demographic realities and increasingly radical, well-armed Arabs making them panicky about Israel's security, Israel's leaders naturally to try to lock down as much U.S. support as possible. Having consciously – if unwisely – put all their eggs in the U.S. basket since the 1973 War, Israel's leaders must do everything possible to protect their relationship with Washington.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq, it seems, was not enough for the Israel-firsters. Now, according to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a U.S.-launched war on Iran is needed because “the threat that the U.S. and Israel face from the Islamic Republic of Iran is today greater than ever.” Though based on the fantasy that Ahmedinejad's tin-pot regime is a threat to the world's only superpower, this is a perfectly commonsense position for Israel and its U.S.-citizen backers in AIPAC to champion. In their view, U.S. wars with Muslims are the ultimate good for Israel. Recall, if you will, the perfectly accurate April 2008, words of Benjamin Netanyahu, likely Israel's next prime minister: “We [Israel] are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” These wars, Netanyahu said, have “swung American public opinion in our favor.” How much more must Netanyahu and AIPAC believe that a U.S. war with Iran would add to this “swing” in Israel's favor?

My own anger falls not on Israel, then, or on Palestine, for that matter; as I have written elsewhere, America would do just fine and would be better off without either or both. It falls rather on the lobbying efforts of AIPAC, that organization's blatant purchasing of fealty from U.S. politicians in both parties, and the media's obsequious parroting of specious canards about “Israel's right to exist” and “the duty of Americans to support an island of democracy in the Middle East.”

While few would question the right of AIPAC leaders to lobby U.S. politicians, legally bribe them with campaign contributions, or limit their right to speak as they please in public, not matter how scurrilous or libelous their words, I sometimes wonder if Americans have focused on what AIPAC lobbies for and what its acolytes in politics and the media support.

It is a commonplace to say that lobbying is a pervasive activity in U.S. politics at all levels of government, especially at the federal level. People lobby for tax advantages for business or tax breaks for individuals; for the right to own guns or laws to ban them; for subsidies for agriculture or vouchers for private schools; for universal health care or smaller government. Across this diverse array of lobbyists there are two common threads: (A) None are working to push the United States to participate in other peoples' wars; and (B) All are arguing for things that will – from their perspective – improve America, whether by making it richer, better protected, more competently educated, healthier, freer, etc. The anti-gun lobby, for example, is no less confident than the NRA and its affiliates that they are working for the best interests of Americans. One or the other is wrong, but their activities are shaped by their perception of what is best for America.

It is this last point that separates the lobbyists working for and with AIPAC – most of whom are U.S. citizens – from almost all other U.S.-based lobbyists. AIPAC does not lobby, bribe, and libel to make Americans and America better off. It lobbies solely, forthrightly, and cynically to make Israel richer, better protected, and able to do as it pleases in its relations with Muslim states. AIPAC makes no pretense of doing things meant to benefit America; rather, its members take pride in seeking a goal that runs directly counter to the economic welfare and physical security of almost all other U.S citizens by seeking to keep them involved in a religious war in which no U.S. national interest is at stake.

Now, there are a few other similar anti-American lobbies – those for Armenia, Lebanon, Greece, etc. – but AIPAC is clearly primus inter pares in this dastardly group. And given that every AIPAC success is a net loss for U.S. security and the U.S. Treasury, it seems odd that our so-called political leaders take orders and funds from this fundamentally anti-U.S. organization. Odd or not, however, that is the reality. Senators Obama and McCain have become AIPAC poster boys, each strengthening his support for Israel over the course of the current presidential campaign. Obama's position, in fact, has changed so drastically in a pro-Israel direction that the Illinois senator appears to have no mind of his own on this issue. He has simply and obsequiously adopted the Democrats' traditional abject subservience to their small but powerful pro-Israel constituency.

McCain is an Israel-firster of the deepest hue. Coached by Joe Lieberman – who argues there is a U.S. duty to ensure God's promise to Abraham about Israel is kept – McCain is now considering Republican Congressman Eric Cantor for his running mate. Rep. Cantor, needless to say, is eager to spend American blood and treasure to secure Israel. Speaking in Israel, Cantor pushed the same false assertion that is the staple of U.S. leaders in both parties. “What befalls Jerusalem,” Cantor said, “threatens the security of the United States and its allies worldwide. That's because Jerusalem and Israel are Ground Zero in the global battle between tyranny and democracy, radicalism and moderation, terrorism and freedom.”

This, of course, is nonsense of a high order, and Lieberman and Cantor know it. Both men are committed to Israel as a religious idea, not because it has anything to do with U.S. security. According to Lieberman, “The rabbis say in the Talmud that a lot of rabbinic law is to put a fence around the Torah so you don't get near to violating it. Well, McCain has a series of very clear-headed policies toward terrorism and Islamic extremism [that put] extra layers behind his support for Israel.” He also told a conference of Christians United for Israel that he was pleased they recognized it was America's duty to defend Israel, blithely lying to them that “President Washington and the Founding Fathers” would support America fighting Israel's wars. Cantor, playing to both the Israel-firsters and their U.S. evangelical allies, also has made clear where his primary loyalty lies:

“Jerusalem is not merely the capital of Israel but the spiritual capital of Jews and Christians everywhere. It's the site of the First and Second Temples, which housed the Holy of Holies, and it's the direction in which we Jews face when we pray. This glorious City of David is bound to the Jewish people by an undeniable 3,000-year historical link.”

My own view is that if God promised Palestine to the Israelis, God is perfectly capable of keeping that promise, and America is no way committed to expend the lives of its soldier-children in a war over conflicting interpretations of God's word. The Israelis and the Muslims should be perfectly free to fight over whether Yahweh and Abraham or Allah and Mohammed are right, and Americans should be perfectly free to draw the correct conclusion, that the United States does not have a dog in this fight. In addition, there is a genuine constitutional question of church-state separation on this issue. Why should American taxpayers have their earnings and children's lives spent to defend a theocracy in Israel or, for that matter, to protect an Islamic theocracy in Saudi Arabia.? (Imagine the howls of protest and torrents of church-state separation rhetoric from the media and both parties if a congressman introduced a bill calling for the U.S. to designate that an amount equivalent to what's spent to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia be sent to the Vatican – a nation-state like Israel and Saudi Arabia – to improve its defenses against the now well-articulated threat from al-Qaeda and other Islamists.)

Objectively, three realities are clear: (1) U.S. survival is not at stake in the Israeli-Muslim war; (2) the taxes of Americans should not be spent to defend theocratic states; and (3) holy books are insane tools to use as guides for U.S. foreign policy. In America, however, these realities lie unspoken because of the lobbying efforts of AIPAC and the pro-Israel mantras of the politicians it purchases with campaign contributions and promises of media exposure, including McCain and Obama. By their consistent anti-American actions, AIPAC and the U.S. politicians who do its bidding have fully validated the words of the real George Washington – not the figment of Washington painted by Joe Lieberman. “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,” President Washington wrote in 1796, “the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

interview the most certain act in the fight against AIDS is to maintain monogamous relationships. The advice was seen as seen as ironic coming from a former President who was impeached by the House of Representatives (and later acquitted by the Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice involving an extra-marital affair he was having with a 22-year-old White House intern.

Speaking of politics, the former President later failed to admit that Barack Obama was ready for the highest office of the United States. This has fueled reports that Clinton is still angry over Obama defeating Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States.

Win or lose, Obama will find himself most often compared to Bill Clinton, the country’s last Democratic President. In Israel, Aron’s Israel Peace Weblog noticed something familiar when Obama recently sat down for an interview with the conservative paper, the Jerusalem Post.

No one in my quadrant of the political spectrum is ever going to be elected President. So my key criteria for a “good” President are: compassion, worldliness, intelligence and political savvy. Obama seems to have all of these in abundance. Although I don't agree with many of the details of his positions, the more I hear him speak the more impressed I am. He is the savviest and most intelligent politician the Democratic party has produced since Bill Clinton, and I mean that as a compliment. He may not be super progressive, but he seems to be on the correct side of the fence on all important issues. And the more I see him, the more I feel he has the same human empathy and care for people that Clinton did.

Finally, Clinton’s policies against Osama bin Laden have again made waves. Saisi Duni, from Kenya, reports that a new book by the journalist Lawrence Wright claims that the U.S. military strikes to hoping to cripple the Al-Qaeda network in east Africa after the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had the opposite effect.

The Clinton administration’s failure to strike back effectively in 1998 helped make it possible for al Qaeda to carry out the massive attacks on New York and Washington three years later, says the book titled The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Wright describes as “ineffectual” the US retaliation for the August 7, 1998, bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Less than two weeks later, 13 cruise missiles were fired at a factory in Khartoum that the United States believed was being used to develop poison gas for use by al Qaeda. Simultaneously, 66 cruise missiles were launched from US warships in the Arabian Sea. Their targets were al Qaeda training camps near Khost in eastern Afghanistan. The twin missile attacks were given the code name “Operation Infinite Reach.”