Tag: cold war

Reports: Castro Regime Propagandist Living in Florida Thanks to Biden Parole Program

Narciso Amador Fernández Ramírez, a known propagandist of Cuba’s communist Castro regime, is allegedly living in the United States thanks to the Biden-era “Humanitarian Parole” program, Cuban-American journalist Mario Pentón reported on Thursday.

The outlet Cubanet described Fernández Ramírez, 65, as a former deputy director of Vanguardia, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) in the central province of Villa Clara, who also served as columnist for the state propaganda outlet Cubahora. 

The communist propagandist is known in Cuba for vehemently insulting the Cuban diaspora in the United States, branding its members as “rats,” gusanos (“maggots”), and “mercenaries.”

Most notably, Fernández Ramírez appears listed as the author of two pieces published on the official website of late murderous dictator Fidel Castro. One such piece, dated 2019, in which Fernández Ramírez is listed as an author refers to the veterans of the Bay of Pigs liberation attempt as “rats.” In another piece, dated 2017, Fernández Ramírez praised late murderous communist dictator Fidel Castro and claimed that Castro is “seated, vigilant, next to [Cuban founding Father Jose] Martí, in the sacred Olympus of the heroes of the Homeland.”

Pentón reported that Fernández Ramírez has resided in Homestead, Florida, since March 2024 after he became a beneficiary of “humanitarian parole,” a now-extinct and fraud-riddled program launched in 2023 by the administration of former U.S. President Joe Biden that allowed up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitiaians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans per month to request entry to the United States by means of a “sponsor,” granting them legal stay and work permits for a period of “up to two years.”

“He is waiting for a green card to apply for benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. He, who was the most unconditional communist in Villa Clara, is now enjoying his old age in the country he despised so much,” a source told Pentón on condition of anonymity.

According to Pentón, Fernández Ramírez presently lives in Homestead with his wife Elizabeth Leal and their daughter, who already resided in the United States.

“A simple Google search was enough to know that this man was a propagandist for the Communist Party of Cuba. That makes him ineligible for immigration benefits,” Florida-based immigration attorney Ismael Labrador told Pentón.

Keep reading

Oversight Project Files Formal Request with FBI for Records on Marcus Raskin — Father of Radical Democrat Jamie Raskin Suspected of Being a Communist Agent

The Oversight Project has submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking records on Marcus Raskin — a co-founder of the far-left Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and father of radical Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

The request, filed by Michael Howell of the Oversight Project, focuses on Marcus Goodman Raskin’s extensive history of anti-American activism, left-wing organizing, and suspected ties to Soviet-backed communist networks during the Cold War.

According to the FBI’s formal response dated April 17, 2025, the Bureau acknowledged it has “completed its review of records subject to the FOIA” and directed the requestor to its electronic FOIA Library, known as the Vault.

The letter indicated that while some records have already been released publicly, “additional records responsive to your request were processed but are not currently available on The Vault,” suggesting the FBI holds more information on Raskin that may not yet be fully disclosed.

The FBI also offered to conduct a further search through its Central Records System if requested.

Keep reading

Meet Russia’s real-life ‘Americans’ — spies hiding in plain sight

Ann Foley, a part-time real estate agent, lived a middle-class, all-American lifestyle with her husband, Don, and their two sons, in Cambridge, Mass., home of many of America’s most prestigious universities and think tanks.

But the likeable, friendly couple had a very secret life.

Ann was, in fact, Elena Vavilova, a deep-cover spy trained by the secret Russian intelligence agency, the notorious KGB. Don, her seemingly pleasant husband, was actually Andrei Bezrukov, also a KGB agent.

In June 2010, the couple, both illegals in the US, was arrested by the FBI.

In New York City, meanwhile, Anna Chapman also worked in real estate, but lived a far different lifestyle than Ann Foley. Voluptuous and flame-haired, Chapman had a reputation for flirting with her potential property  clients — the Big Apple’s men of power and wealth.

But the two women, Foley and Chapman, did have one commonality.

Chapman, too, was a secret Russian agent here to spy on America.

In 2010, she was arrested with nine other Russian spies, with authorities breaking up one of the largest intelligence networks in the US since the end of the Cold War.

It took decades for the FBI to unravel Russia’s most secret spy program. Now author Shaun Walker, in “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies and their Century-Long Mission to Infiltrate the West” (Knopf), has written a riveting and revelatory history of the Soviet Union’s spy program that asks the reader — do you really know who your neighbors are?

Keep reading

How A Fabricated Story From A Corrupt Billionaire Launched The New Cold War With Russia.

With the coming close to the Ukraine proxy war, now is a better time than ever to look at what sparked the post-cold war hostilities between America and Russia.

Some could point to multiple events including the Maidan coup, the downing of the MH17 flight, the Russian intervention into the Syrian war, Russiagate, or the Ukraine proxy war.

But one event precedes all of these things.

That is the passing of the Magnitsky Act sanctions in 2012.

The bill, which put sanctions on Russian officials supposedly for “the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the conspiracy to defraud the Russian Federation of taxes on corporate profits through fraudulent transactions and lawsuits against Hermitage, and for other gross violations of human rights”.

The bill was passed in the House and Senate and was eventually signed into law by then-President Barack Obama.

This story came from Bill Browder, an American billionaire who set up shop in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union to try to make money off of Russia’s new IMF-imposed economy.

According to Browder’s account, he was the head of Hermitage Capital Management, which he called “the largest investment firm in Russia.” Browder alleged that in 2007 his office was raided by two Russian policemen named Artyom Kuznetsov and Pavel Karpov who seized documents that were “used to fraudulently re-register the ownership of our investment holding companies as well as to create $1 billion of fake tax liabilities”.

He alleged that “the corrupt officials used their new “ownership” of our companies and the fake liabilities to fraudulently reclaim $230 million of taxes we paid in the previous year”.

He claimed that he then “hired Sergei Magnitsky, then a 35-year-old tax lawyer, to investigate”.

According to Browder’s story “he helped us file criminal complaints against the police officers involved in the raids with a different branch of Russian law enforcement and was so brave that he even testified against them.” And in retaliation “was arrested by two of the same Interior Ministry officers against whom he had testified”.

Keep reading

The Soviet-Palestinian Lie

The recent discovery that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), was a KGB spy in Damascus in 1983, was discarded by many in the mainstream media as a “historical curiosity” — except that the news inconveniently came out at the time that President Vladimir Putin was trying to organize new talks between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Predictably, the Palestinian Authority immediately dismissed the news. Fatah official Nabil Shaath denied that Abbas was ever a KGB operative, and called the claim a “smear campaign.”

The discovery, far from being a “historical curiosity,” is an aspect of one of many pieces in the puzzle of the origins of 20th and 21st century Islamic terrorism. Those origins are almost always obfuscated and obscured in ill-concealed attempts at presenting a particular narrative about the causes of contemporary terrorism, while decrying all and any evidence to the contrary as “conspiracy theories.”

There is nothing conspiratorial about the latest revelation. It comes from a document in the Mitrokhin archives at the Churchill Archives Center at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Vasily Mitrokhin was a former senior officer of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence service, who was later demoted to KGB archivist. At immense risk to his own life, he spent 12 years diligently copying secret KGB files that would not otherwise have become available to the public (the KGB foreign intelligence archives remain sealed from the public, despite the demise of the Soviet Union). When Mitrokhin defected from the Russia in 1992, he brought the copied files with him to the UK. The declassified parts of the Mitrokhin archives were brought to the public eye in the writings of Cambridge professor Christopher Andrew, who co-wrote The Mitrokhin Archive (published in two volumes) together with the Soviet defector. Mitrokhin’s archives led, among other things, to the discovery of many KGB spies in the West and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the history of the full extent of the KGB’s influence and disinformation operations is not nearly as well-known as it should be, considering the immense influence that the KGB wielded on international affairs. The KGB conducted hostile operations against NATO as a whole, against democratic dissent within the Soviet bloc, and set in motion subversive events in Latin America and the Middle East, which resonate to this day.

The KGB, furthermore, was an extremely active player in the creation of so-called liberation movements in Latin America and in the Middle East, movements that went on to engage in lethal terrorism — as documented in, among other places, The Mitrokhin Archive, as well as in the books and writings of Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Communist official to defect from the former Soviet bloc.

Pacepa was deputy chief of the Romanian foreign intelligence service and a personal advisor to Romanian Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu before he defected to the United States in 1978. Pacepa worked with the CIA to bring down communism for more than 10 years; the agency described his cooperation as “an important and unique contribution to the United States.”

Keep reading

Is This the Beginning or the End of a New Cold War?

When European Union leaders met in Brussels on February 6th to discuss the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron called this time “a turning point in history.” Western leaders agree that this is an historic moment when decisive action is needed, but what kind of action depends on their interpretation of the nature of this moment.

Is this the beginning of a new Cold War between the U.S., NATO and Russia or the end of one? Will Russia and the West remain implacable enemies for the foreseeable future, with a new iron curtain between them through what was once the heart of Ukraine? Or can the United States and Russia resolve the disputes and hostility that led to this war in the first place, so as to leave Ukraine with a stable and lasting peace?

Some European leaders see this moment as the beginning of a long struggle with Russia, akin to the beginning of the Cold War in 1946, when Winston Churchill warned that “an iron curtain has descended” across Europe.

On March 2nd, echoing Churchill, European Council President Ursula von der Leyen declared that Europe must turn Ukraine into a “steel porcupine.” President Zelenskyy has said he wants up to 200,000 European troops on the eventual ceasefire line between Russia and Ukraine to “guarantee” any peace agreement, and insists that the United States must provide a “backstop,” meaning a commitment to send U.S. forces to fight in Ukraine if war breaks out again.

Russia has repeatedly said it won’t agree to NATO forces being based in Ukraine under any guise. “We explained today that the appearance of armed forces from the same NATO countries, but under a false flag, under the flag of the European Union or under national flags, does not change anything in this regard,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on February 18. “Of course this is unacceptable to us.”

But the U.K. is persisting in a campaign to recruit a “coalition of the willing,” the same term the U.S. and U.K. coined for the list of countries they persuaded to support the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. In that case, only Australia, Denmark and Poland took small parts in the invasion, Costa Rica publicly insisted on being removed from the list, and the term was widely lampooned as the “coalition of the billing” because the U.S. recruited so many countries to join it by promising them lucrative foreign aid deals.

Keep reading

The Entire Cold War Was an Avoidable Mistake

The war-weary Washington policy makers were absolutely correct when they brought America’s 12 million-man expeditionary force home from Asia, Europe and the Seven Seas after August 1945. So doing, of course, they also abruptly closed the sluice-gates to what was America’s Brobdingnagian $1.7 trillion war budget in today’s dollars (FY 2025 $). But as we noted in Part 1, that figure had shrunk by a stunning 93% to just $125 billion by 1948 as post-war demobilization proceeded apace.

And well it should have. Among the burned out and exhausted lands abroad after V-E Day and V-J Day there was absolutely no military threat anywhere on the planet to the homeland security and liberty of America.

Japan’s leading cities had been fried alive by horrendous nuclear and conventional bombing assaults; Germany’s industrial and urban areas had been laid waste by bomber storms night after night for months on end; Italy had long since hung its wartime leader in a convulsion of political upheaval; France was barely functioning economically and politically after four years of brutal Nazi occupation; England was utterly bankrupt and so demoralized that its electorate had thrown its wartime leader, Winston Churchill, to the political wolves; and that is to say nothing of the prostate corpus of Stalinist Russia.

And we do mean prostrate. During WWII Soviet Russia had suffered 27 million military and civilian deaths due to bombs, bullets, starvation, disease, pestilence, atrocities and other barely imaginable inhuman afflictions. And that was atop 32,000 industrial enterprises that had been pulverized, along with upwards of 70,000 towns and villages destroyed by the marauding Nazi armies. In all, at war’s end tens of millions of Soviet citizens had been left destitute owing to the brutality of both their communist rulers at home and the German invaders who had descended upon them from the west for the second time in 25 years.

In some kind of ghoulish absolution, therefore, the slate had been wiped clean. There was not even a scant reason for American expeditionary forces to remain outside the homeland. And that’s to say nothing of maintaining bases, alliances and commitments to intervene anywhere abroad that would put American servicemen in harms’ way and involve Washington in the “entangling alliances” against which Jefferson and Washington himself had forewarned.

And yet and yet. Exactly 11 months after Hitlers’ demise at his own hand in his bunker and eight months after Armageddon had been visited upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the inveterate out-of-power war-mongering Winston Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton Missouri. That was the opening call to the Cold War, which was powerfully seconded barely 10 months latter when the then accidental US president from the same state delivered his “Truman Doctrine” speech to a joint session of Congress. That latter was a belligerent oration which ignited the Cold War and the costly, suffocating web of entangling alliances that it fostered and the post-1947 American Empire that grew therefrom.

Keep reading

Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods was a covert plan proposed in 1962 by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The operation was intended to create a series of false-flag events to justify military intervention in Cuba. It was conceived during a period of heightened tension between the United States and Cuba, following the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro’s rise to power. The primary goal of Operation Northwoods was to fabricate acts of terrorism and aggression that could be attributed to the Cuban government, thereby providing the U.S. government with a pretext for invading the island and ousting Castro.

The plan included various possible scenarios, such as staging attacks on American military installations in Guantanamo Bay, sinking boats carrying Cuban refugees, and orchestrating fake hijackings of civilian airliners. These incidents were to be designed in such a way that they would appear to be carried out by Cuban operatives. The hope was that these provocations would lead the American public and international community to support military action against Cuba. The operation’s proposals went as far as considering the possible loss of American lives, which would have been falsely blamed on the Cuban government to rally support for intervention.

Operation Northwoods was never approved, and President John F. Kennedy ultimately rejected the plan. The proposal was part of a broader effort by the U.S. government during the Cold War to contain the spread of communism, particularly in Latin America. This rejection is often viewed as a critical moment in Kennedy’s presidency, demonstrating his reluctance to escalate military conflict in Cuba, especially in the wake of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion the previous year.

Keep reading

America’s Origins of Russophobia

For those that grew up in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s, the explosion of Russophobia over the past decade likely came as something of a surprise. A brief survey of the history of Russophobia, however, reveals that the decade and a half after the end of the Cold War was something of an anomaly in the past century and a half of American foreign policy, with a blend of inherited geopolitical fears and ideological tensions leading to a generally anti-Russian sentiment in Washington.

Our investigation begins with the so-called “Testament of Peter the Great.” An eighteenth century forgery of largely Polish origin, it purported to show, in the words of the University of London historian Orlando Figes, that the aims of Russian foreign policy were nothing less than world domination:

“…to expand on the Baltic and Black seas, to ally with the Austrians to expel the Turks from Europe, to conquer the Levant and control the trade to the Indies, to sow dissent and confusion in Europe and become the master of the European continent.”

First published in Napoleonic France in 1812, on the eve of the Grand Armée’s ill-fated invasion of Russia, it was to go on to provide the grist for many an English fear-monger’s mill.

In 1817, Sir Robert Wilson’s A Sketch of the Military and Political Power of Russia in the Year 1817 luridly detailed the military and geopolitical threat supposedly posed by Russia, and a decade later George de Lacy Evans’s On the Designs of Russia repeated these earlier warnings—both were favorably received by the public and among the ruling establishment, paranoid as ever about any potential threat to British control of India. Then, in 1834, the highly influential David Urquhart published his own pamphlet, England, France, Russia and Turkey, casting Russia as the perpetual antagonist to British interests in the Near East and Central Asia.

Not everyone was fooled, however. As noted by the Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken, the great British liberals, such as Richard Cobden and John Bright, often opposed these characterizations and exaggerated threats. In turn, they were rewarded only with the scorn familiar to today’s scoffers. Indeed, the perception of Russia as a natural, age-old enemy became embedded in British geopolitical thought.

Keep reading