The malware, which was specially developed by the German Federal Criminal Police Office, functions similarly to a typical virus used by hackers, according to Deutsche Welle. It allows officers to infiltrate a targeted device and access its files and also makes it possible for them to spy on a suspect’s communications, including emails or conversations conducted via phone or programs like Skype.

The Trojan opens “a back-door” to the targeted computer, allowing the operator to not only copy files from the computer’s hard drive, but also retrieve all of the user’s passwords, providing almost unlimited access to a person’s digital data. It even can even facilitate on-line video and audio surveillance, as smartphones and laptops are often equipped with integrated microphones and cameras.

If France and Germany can’t work together, the dream of a united Europe will shatter. In the 1950s, that premise drove Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and President Charles de Gaulle to an historic understanding: Franco-German cooperation would be the bedrock on which to build Western Europe’s revival. France would lead Europe’s political reconstruction while West Germany powered its economy.

It seemed logical. On the still-smoldering ruins of World War II, the two nations had comparable power, and for 30 years they worked in concert toward a Common Market, a Europe-wide visa policy and plans for a common currency. But in the 1990s, German reunification undid the balance. French influence waned as Germany’s economy became a juggernaut. The French struggled with globalization, refusing to exchange their social benefits for competitive efficiency. So Germany became the primary voice within the European market.

The common currency arrived, with German banks in the lead. But by 2005, France’s voters had soured on surrendering more sovereignty: In a trendsetting plebiscite, soon followed by one in the Netherlands, they stopped momentum toward an all-Europe constitution. Then came the 2008 financial crash, laying bare the economic gap and political resentments between Northern Europe, driven by Germany, and the less industrious South. Even more dangerous politically, but less discussed, the crash exposed a growing gap between French and German attitudes toward each other — their labor forces, welfare policies and diplomacy. Last year, terrorism and the Middle East refugee crisis brought that, too, into focus.

Now when they meet, President François Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel speak of solidarity, but in different terms. Mr Hollande declares France “at war with the Islamic State,” while German leaders talk of “fighting terrorism.” The French take on military operations in Mali, Iraq and Syria, while Germans prefer international humanitarian operations. Germans fret that the French have become warmongers, while many French see appeasement rather than remorse when today’s Germans pronounce: “Never again war, never again Auschwitz.”

In economics, Germany is a powerhouse of free-market liberalism, strong on austerity and scornful of budget profligacy, which Germans associate with “the Euro welfare state,” a very French idea.

The very definition of Euro-power is up for grabs

Britons will vote June 23 on whether to remain a member of the EU. Asked in an interview on France 5 television whether the EU was planning what to do if they vote to leave, Moscovici said, "No, no and no, there is no plan 'B'. It doesn't help us in any way to envisage disaster scenarios."

"The day we start talking about a plan 'B' is the day we no longer believe in our plan 'A'. I have just one plan. The United Kingdom in a united Europe," Moscovici said. Moscovici said the EU's executive will not take part in the referendum campaign, saying any involvement could backfire.

Rogers notes that lowering interest rates and printing money have not only become a textbook play by the central banks in combating deflation — they are the ONLY tools used! Says Rogers, “This is going to be a disaster in the end… you should be very worried and you should be prepared.”

Rogers is basing these claims on the fact that the equities market is being artificially propped up by the central banks, and that this cannot go on for much longer. Over time, their efforts to keep financial markets afloat is becoming less effective. In fact, Rogers predicts that we will see trouble as soon as the end of this year, and going into 2017.

Rather than consider other options, central banks are doubling down on their plans to try and stimulate the global economy through lax monetary policy… even though it isn’t working! Yes, this fits the textbook definition of insanity. Those are just some of the issues to keep an eye on in 2016 as central banks will likely be left with no option but to devalue currencies.

The possibility of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, where a nuclear device is programmed to produce an electromagnetic wave with such force to destroy electronic systems, has plagued mankind since the Cold War, according to the Center for Security Policy. However fresh fears have emerged that North Korea could be the one to launch such an attack following its hydrogen bomb claim and its firing of a rocket just days ago.

Henry Cooper, a director at the think tank Foundation for Resilient Societies, said: “The technology of building a super EMP weapon is understood and at least by circumstantial evidence… the North Koreans know how to do it.” Labelling North Korea as “an essential threat”, he argued that an EMP attack could be triggered by a low-yield hydrogen weapon.

Heathfield school's Jo Heywood believes one of the benefits of gender neutral parenting is that it would produce girls confident about entering careers such as science and engineering, traditionally regarded as a man's world. Ms Heywood told Sian Griffiths of The Sunday Times: 'If a little boy wants to explore wearing a princess dress and a little girl wants to spend time in a fireman's outfit, then that is to be encouraged ... Have girlie make-up, but let boys have it too.'

The mother-of-three added: 'Girls and boys should be allowed to explore roles traditionally associated with the opposite sex.' More than 2,000 mothers were surveyed, a quarter of which also wanted gender neutral school uniforms. It was also revealed that two out of five mothers under the age of 30 now parent in a gender neutral manner, in comparison with just one in four older mothers.

The concept of gender neutral parenting first became popular among feminists in America during the 1970s, when it inspired the actress Marlo Thomas to write a best-selling children’s book called Free To Be… You and Me.

Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead. We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones. And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP. If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet. This is what Justice Scalia was going up against. If he was murdered, there was sufficient reason.

However, few of these bags are full of necessities, the report warns.

Some 61 per cent of these people have packed food, 53 per cent packed medical supplies, and the third most common packed item is a mobile phone, with 47 per cent planning on taking theirs. The report – released in conjunction with science event The Big Bang Fair – advised that items such as a fire-starting kit, water bottle, small knife, rope and food should all be the top priorities.

Additionally, it says that people hoping to survive a disaster should head to the supermarket or a golf course. A supermarket has enough food to sustain someone for an average of 55 years, while a golf course would be abundant in golf buggies, which could be used to store generated electricity, which would be extremely useful in trying to rebuild a society.

Dr Dartnell said: "Clearly we shouldn’t be worrying twenty four seven about a potential apocalypse but it’s interesting to take a snap shot of where we are now and how we’d fare – individually and as a society."

In the context of the pending invasion, Dahham Al-'Anzi outlined the missiles, planes and other war-fighting equipment the Kingdom has acquired and then revealed "We have a nuclear bomb" and asked the TV Interviewer, "Why do you think we have all these weapons?" He then answered his own question "to protect Arabs and Muslims." Not content to have revealed this staggering information, Dahham Al-'Anzi went further and stated "We may test it within weeks."

The stunned TV Interviewer said "This is breaking news, I haven't heard this before" to which Dahham Al-'Anzi replied "This isn't breaking news, the super powers have known about this for a while."

Arabian Peninsula countries including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ratified or acceded to a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1988, Qatar and Kuwait in 1989, UAE in 1995, and Oman in 1997.

The fact that Saudi Arabia now admits they took possession of nuclear bombs despite having signed the Treaty means something very simple: Saudi Arabia's "word" cannot be trusted. Even with something as serious and solemn as a Treaty, their "word" is no good. Even when their "King" signs a treaty, the word of their King is now proved to be no good. To put it in street terms, Saudis are "shifty."

With Saudi Arabia presently hosting military "exercises" with some 300,000 troops in the northern part of its country, and Turkey massing tanks and troops in the southern part of their country, it is becoming clear that Syria will be over-run within hours once the Saudis (and their coalition) and the Turks, strike from both the north and the south. Russia has a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons if they are faced with being over-run.

When the ground invasion of Syria begins - likely within days - Russia will have to make one of two choices:

1) Strike with tactical nukes to defend themselves, OR

2) Be totally humiliated by being over-run by a bunch of Arab camel jockeys with filthy rags on their heads.

If Russia strikes, then it is clear that Saudi Arabia will use full-sized nuke(s) against the Russian base at Latakia and perhaps even against the country of Russia itself! In either case, if someone nukes Russian troops, it is clear Russia will strike back.

The question is, who?

Does Russia strike Riyadh, Mecca and Medina - which would rid the world of much trouble from a religion with stone age values and barbaric rituals and practices? Or does Russia strike both Saudi Arabia AND Turkey since both are attacking? And if Russia uses tactical nukes INSIDE SYRIA, and Saudi Arabia launches from outside Syria, what will the US and NATO do?

Neither the US nor NATO want a nuclear war with Russia. No sane person wants a nuclear war with anyone! But what will the US do? The US is in an impossible predicament:

1) If the US strikes Russia, Russia will strike back - and millions of us in both countries, die.

2) If the US fails to strike back, then no US ally will ever believe our promise to defend them!

In either case, we here in the US, and our brethren in Russia, are being set up to destroy each other, by a group of Muslim fanatics. We should not fall into a trap where Christian USA and Christian Russia do battle over Muslim madmen in the Middle East.

For half a century, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the linchpin of US Mideast policy. A guaranteed supply of oil has bought a guaranteed supply of security. Ignoring autocratic practices and the export of Wahhabi extremism, Washington stubbornly dubs its ally “moderate.” So tight is the trust that US special operators dip into Saudi petrodollars as a counterterrorism slush fund without a second thought. In a sea of chaos, goes the refrain, the kingdom is one state that’s stable.

But is it?

In fact, Saudi Arabia is no state at all. There are two ways to describe it: as a political enterprise with a clever but ultimately unsustainable business model, or so corrupt as to resemble in its functioning a vertically and horizontally integrated criminal organization. Either way, it can’t last. It’s past time US decision-makers began planning for the collapse of the Saudi kingdom. In recent conversations with military and other government personnel, we were startled at how startled they seemed at this prospect. Here’s the analysis they should be working through:

Understood one way, the Saudi king is CEO of a family business that converts oil into payoffs that buy political loyalty. They take two forms: cash handouts or commercial concessions for the increasingly numerous scions of the royal clan, and a modicum of public goods and employment opportunities for commoners. The coercive “stick” is supplied by brutal internal security services lavishly equipped with American equipment.

For the moment, it is largely Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority that is voicing political demands. But the highly educated Sunni majority, with unprecedented exposure to the outside world, is unlikely to stay satisfied forever with a few favors doled out by geriatric rulers impervious to their input. And then there are the “guest workers.” Saudi officials, like those in other Gulf states, seem to think they can exploit an infinite supply of indigents grateful to work under whatever conditions. But citizens are now heavily outnumbered in their own countries by laborers who may soon begin claiming rights.

But the overwhelming reaction has been scorn, with some within his own party labelling it 'thin gruel' while Labour and campaign groups have also criticised it as 'watered-down' and a failure. Eurosceptics said the deal was 'irrelevant' as he had not asked for any changes to freedom of movement or the repatriation of powers to the UK, while others said Cameron promised 'to get half a loaf but came back with crumbs'.

They also said it did nothing to address the chaos raging across Europe. The Out camp was also boosted by news Cabinet big hitter Michael Gove is likely to campaign for out. The Prime Minister said he was 'disappointed, but not surprised' that he and his close friend would not be on the same side.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn dismissed the renegotiation as a 'largely irrelevant' spectacle but confirmed Labour would campaign for In. Announcing the deal last night, Mr Cameron said: 'Britain will be permanently out of ever closer union, never part of a European super state. There will be tough new restrictions for access to our welfare system for migrants, no more something for nothing'.

Confirming his position to campaign for Britain to remain part of the EU, he said: "I do not love Brussels, I love Britain.

"I will never say that our country can't survive outside of Europe, we can achieve great things. But the question is will we be stronger and safer in a reformed Europe?" He added: "The choice is in your hands, but my recommendation is clear. I believe that Britain will be safer, stronger and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union."