An unnamed Indian takeaway has been found serving wrongly labelled meat by BBC researchers. Food experts working for a BBC3 programme had ordered an Indian lamb curry from the London restaurant but found that the meat in the curry had no trace of lamb.

Further DNA tests concluded that the meat chunks were not beef, chicken, pork, goat, horse or even human flesh, leading to speculation that the "lamb" curry contained dog or cat meat.

The Horsemeat Banquet programme, which roped in a group of young diners to challenge their prejudices about food, found that the meat  in the Indian curry was anything other than lamb.

A show spokesperson said: "The lab is unable to identify exactly which animal this meat came from."

Nutritionist Surinder Phull said: "It's absolutely terrifying because if it isn't any of the meats we know, what is it? Where has it come from? Where was it slaughtered? Was it hygienic? Was it covered in bacteria?"

The restaurant in the programme was not the only one found to be serving suspicious meat. The young diners also had doubts about food they obtained from Chinese takeaways and fast food outlets in the capital.

The beef in Chinese black bean sauce consisted largely of chicken blood and contained only tiny amounts of beef.

And a beefburger bought from a local fast food shop was analysed in the laboratory to reveal that it consisted of bovine blood, chicken scraps and a high level of chicken blood.

The only takeaway restaurant to serve authentic meat was a doner kebab shop. The lamb kebab purchased by the reseasrch team contained no trace of any other meat mixed with it.

Since the horsemeat scandal broke, the Food Standards Agency has ordered more than 5,000 tests and returned 44 positive results showing equine contents in meals..

You have absolutely no comment on the fact that DHS memos all warn about white freedom lovers in the USA being the biggest threat (enemy) in this "war" on terror. Fitting, because this fact makes your stance that endless war against everyone is a ridiculous re-conception of what "war" is. And a redefinition of the war into something which would fit better in  Orwell's 1984 than reality.

Theatre is putting your head in the sand them pretending to be educated on topics you know literally nothing about.

Ohnoes, somebody gave them an American flag to burn, and everybody knows we fund dictators and oppress people in the region so they're not real in love with us.

You actually believe people selling newspapers in the Middle East start work at 6 am saying "Damn I hate America," and are still raging about America at the end of the day. You actually think they care about you or us. You actually think you're as much the center of their lives as you are of yours.

Most people in Afghanistan don't know what 9/11 is to this day.

In fact, I'm not comfortable talking to a terrorist on this forum. I don't want to risk being confused with having your terrorist ideologies by talking to you. People talking about small government, freedom, and afraid of gay people are the #1 terrorist threat to America, DHS has warned me. And that's you. Good talk. Have a nice day.

You have absolutely no comment on the fact that DHS memos all warn about white freedom lovers in the USA being the biggest threat (enemy) in this "war" on terror. Fitting, because this fact makes your stance that endless war against everyone is a ridiculous re-conception of what "war" is. And a redefinition of the war into something which would fit better in  Orwell's 1984 than reality.

I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark the other day, on VHS (yes, I still have them in that format) and it’s still as entertaining as the first time I watched it when I was a kid. Marion (played by Karen Allen) has that infectious smile that just melts your heart and gets your guard down. And that was the movie that Americans finally found their answer to James Bond, the archaeologist hero in the man with the big hat, played with such charisma by none other than the legendary Harrison Ford.

But Cinematical read from the recent Raiders of the Lost transcript (which you can download OVER THERE) about a conversation between producers Lawrence Kasdan, George Lucas and director Steven Spielberg when they were brainstorming for the character Indiana Jones, this was back in the 70s while in the process of developing Raiders of the Lost Ark and how they almost made him a sex offender, which would kinda, sorta explains the past love affair between Indy and Marion.

Here’s an excerpt…

George Lucas: I was thinking that this old guy could have been the mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

Lawrence Kasdan: And he was forty-two.

George Lucas: He hasn’t seen her in twelve years. Now she’s twenty-two. It’s a real strange relationship.

Steven Spielberg: She had better be older than twenty-two.

George Lucas: He’s thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve. It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

Steven Spielberg: And promiscuous. She came onto him.

George Lucas: Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it’s an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she’s sixteen or seventeen it’s not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he …

I wish I could tell you it’s just April fool’s stuff but it’s not April and it’s not meant to fool anybody.
I guess the movie did kinda imply or suggest that Indy and Marion met when she was just a child.. or younger, whichever, but it’s kinda creepy to think that three dudes were sitting and discussing and deciding this to be the untold background of these two characters.
We may never know for sure but a relationship between a 15 year old Marion and a 25 year old Indiana Jones sounds is a bit too much, don’t you think?!
Unless.. it goes along with the time period of the story, supposedly back in the 1930s and 40s some folks must’ve done it and got away with it unlike some of the teachers that get arrested for statutory these days.
I wonder why George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Lawrence Kasdan felt the need to go with this direction?
Does this bit of information change the way you look at Indiana Jones?

An absence of attacks won't indicate anything, since we've had virtually that for more than a decade. Two idiots who couldn't even set off bombs don't qualify as warfare by literally any definition, sorry. Oh, wait, that one idiot military psychologist enabled by a "gun-free zone" and PCness in the military who emailed a dude counts as warfare.

Mention of the Whiskey Rebellion was evidence for the reasons the executive branch having the authority to defend our sovereign government from insurrection.

You're conflating completely different points. You're confused.

What war is going on?

So, even though no such person has bombed America or shot Americans in decades, if we accept that any such person ever has, we're at "war" against them?

Again you conflate the legality of action of the executive branch as legally authorized by Congress with actual reason and/or justification.

Holder didn't limit himself to "combatants." Your ears need cleaned.

Because you haven't provided any evidence or argument whatsoever that what DHS and the rest of the federal government is doing is REMOTELY necessary to protect against any insurrection or rebellion, let alone one which doesn't exist and there's no evidence is forming to the tiniest degree

Wilson presented the Versailles treaty to the Senate on 10 July 1919, in the supreme confidence that that body would not dare to refuse to give its consent to ratification. There were many signs of danger ahead.

...Saying that the enemies of the League were poisoning the wells of public opinion, Wilson set out upon a tour of the West in order to purify them. In one of the great forensic efforts in American history, he traveled eight thousand miles and delivered thirty-two major addresses between 3 and 25 September 1919. During the early hours of 26 September, Wilson suffered a stroke warning, which ended his tour. Then, on 2 October, after his return to Washington, Wilson suffered a devastating stroke that paralyzed his left side and for a time threatened his life.

This stroke was only the worst manifestation of cerebrovascular disease that had victimized Wilson at least since 1896, when he suffered loss of dexterity in his right hand for about eight months... Wilson, now suffering from uncontrolled hypertension, went to Paris unwell. There he suffered a viral infection and another small stroke in April 1919. This was followed by a more severe small stroke on 19 July. By the time Wilson went out West, his hypertension was fulminant. The specialist who examined Wilson after his large stroke of October reported that he had long suffered from hyper-tension, atherosclerosis, and carotid artery disease and was in the lacunar state as a result of small strokes. Wilson was almost completely disabled, both physically and psychologically, from October through December 1919.
... For his part, Wilson not only refused to yield an inch of ground, but in a public letter (drafted, actually, by his chief of staff, Joseph P. Tumulty), on 8 January 1920 he also made the League issue a partisan question by saying that the coming presidential election should be a "great and solemn referendum" on the question of ratification of the Versailles treaty.

Actually, all hopes for Senate approval were by now dead unless enough Democrats were prepared to defy Wilson and join the Republicans to form a two-thirds majority in favor of ratification with reservations. And if that had happened, Wilson would have killed the treaty himself by refusing to go through the process of ratification. But Wilson did not have to do this. In one of the most important presidential letters in history (drafted for the most part by Tumulty), written to his spokesman in the Senate on 8 March 1920, Wilson commanded Democratic senators to vote against ratification with any reservations whatsoever. A second vote in the Senate, on 19 March 1920, failed to find two-thirds of the senators in favor of the treaty in any form.

...Wilson had passed through the dangerous aftereffects of his stroke and achieved a slight recovery by the end of 1919, but for the balance of his term, he remained a sick man, his physical constitution, psyche, and sense of reality shattered. He continued to function on a low level, but he could sit up or concentrate upon a subject for only short periods. He also suffered from severe changes in mood and from some paranoia. Consequently, Wilson was incapable of giving leadership to his party, to Congress, and to the people during one of the most critical periods in American history.

The myth still persists that Edith Bolting Wilson, Wilson's second wife (his first wife, Ellen Louise Axson Wilson, had died on 6 August 1914), ran the presidential office after his first stroke. Edith Wilson, in consultation with Dr. Grayson, did determine to a large degree the persons whom Wilson saw and for how long. She also took important state papers into Wilson's room, read them to him, and recorded her husband's instructions in the margins of the documents. But she neither knew how to serve as an acting president nor wanted to be one. She was interested only in the health and happiness of her husband, whom she worshiped. Mrs. Wilson did make two decisions of momentous importance: in mid-October 1919 she vetoed a plan by Dr. Grayson and his chief consultant, Dr. Francis X. Dercum of Philadelphia, to make a complete disclosure of Wilson's condition. Later, in January 1920, Dr. Grayson persuaded Wilson to resign, and Mrs. Wilson blocked this initiative.

Power in these circumstances fell to Tumulty, who assumed general oversight of the executive office, and to the various departmental heads. Lansing, as the premier of the group, held unauthorized cabinet meetings on his own from October 1919 until Wilson dismissed him on 12 February 1920.

Lansing's successor was Bainbridge Colby, a New York lawyer, appointed on 25 February 1920. The two men presented a study in contrasts. Whereas Lansing was conservative in political outlook, Colby was an advanced progressive who had followed Roosevelt in 1912 and supported Wilson in 1916. Lansing was a professional "realist"; Colby was an idealist and an amateur, at least at the beginning of his incumbency.

...Wilson seemed to want to wash his hands of European problems after the Senate's second rejection of the Versailles treaty, and the United States government sat on the sidelines while the Allies tidied up the map of Europe. Wilson and Colby also continued the administration's policy of strict noninterference in Russian affairs. The United States, for example, refused to recognize the independence of the new Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Colby coupled the policy of noninterference with one of adamant refusal to recognize the Bolshevik government, on the ground that it did not represent the Russian people.

Departmental heads and Congress met the problems of demobilization without much guidance from the White House. The new attorney general, Alexander Mitchell Palmer, on 8 November 1919, secured an injunction that prevented a nationwide coal strike by the United Mine Workers of America. A federal arbitration commission soon granted most of the miners' demands. Palmer, with an eye on the White House and in response to a mounting fear of Communism, had federal agents, on 1 January 1920, execute a gigantic raid on Communist headquarters throughout the country. It is doubtful if Wilson knew anything about Palmer's raid.

Read more: http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant- … z2OilFIfAk