Trying To Make Gerald Riley Aware That I Have Replied To Him In Comments Section And Loved His Word “Excellent”


Part one, from “Not Satan.”

“Okay , but you do know that Trump in January signed surveillance extension into law ,
the sweeping warrant-less programs that intercept digital traffic of foreign targets while hoovering up the personal information of an unknown number of Americans. YES , that law..
Then to defend your case you use RT (?)
Do you at all see the hypocrisy in this??”

Reply, from Celia Farber, which also contains a reply to Gerald Riley in second half of comment:

“I do.

Trump is not my issue. I have bigger fish to fry.

Trump is actually largely incidental, to the Story Of Our Time, which is: The overreach, exposure (by whistleblowers) and final unraveling of the US Deep State which is complicit as we know in crimes from JFK to 9/11.

If you DON’T know that, you are are very good (or subtle) hallucinogens.

Only easily fooled goldfish are falling for EITHER the anti-Trump or the pro-Trump spy-ops. Trump is one man. One President. 4 or 8 years. Me, I am interested in systems.

Not personality, nor gossip, nor gladiatorial class wars and distractions from what TRULY matters to human life.

Government tyranny. Vs. Government accountability.

Smart people read Wikileaks. Listen to William Binney. Read and listen to Diane Roark. Research the history of Trailblazer, SARC, Thin Thread…smart people know who the criminals are at the heart of all of this.

Oh, Gerald? You brought up the word “excellent,” in trying to persuade me Rachel Maddow is “excellent.” She sure is rich. But is she “excellent?”

I offer to you, two names I consider “excellent:”

William Binney and

Diane Roark

(among many, way way way superior, to Maddow, who has cashed in to the system, supports it every step of the way, and simply does not get the story of the century. Her century. Doesn’t mean she’s not “super smart.”)

12 thoughts on “Trying To Make Gerald Riley Aware That I Have Replied To Him In Comments Section And Loved His Word “Excellent””

  1. Gerald Riley – your comments below are trashy and nasty.

    Your instant ad-hominem of Celia is a dead give-away to your need to compensate for lack of facts and argument. You are minimally a sniveling partisan, and wittingly or unwittingly, an operative for the Deep State at the throat of an elected President.

    Cultivating business and political relationships with Russia is not nearly the same thing as setting up fake dossiers and covering up national security breaches like Uranium One. That is only one problem with your endorsement of the dishonest attack journalism coming out of Rachel Maddow.

    1. Oh, Scott, grow up. My comments are a direct result of Ms. Farber being exactly what I said about her. Re-read it if you do not understand it. And you might want to read all my comments before you falsely accuse me of “lack of facts and argument”. I have supplied many very specific examples. However, the fact that you are still harping on Uranium One proves you do not know your facts. And the dossier is not fake. Please supply specific reasoning why. Many things within the dossier have been proven true and not one, single thing in the dossier has been disproved.

  2. as for “selling out” or “cashing in”
    1) hannity , Net worth 80 million
    2) R. Maddow Net worth 20 million
    3) A. Jones net wort 10 million

    1. Great to know! Thanks.

      I know that many love Hannity right now for staying on the Trump defense, but that guy is a total and complete sell-out and he is fronting for a divide-and-conquer agenda, which they are milking for all it’s worth.

      Don’t forget that he has been one of the main gatekeepers against 9-11 Truth ever coming to light. He was their successful attack journalist for that one – (hence the $80 million).

  3. Celia, you are a very dishonest woman. If you want to bring this blog over to your facebook page, at least tell the whole story. Why not mention that your idea of a responsible journalist is Alex Jones who claims that 20 elementary school children were not murdered. Or rapists Mike Cernovich and Julian Assange are your kinda guys? Raise up rapists while claiming to be on the side of Rose McGowan. You’re up a hypocrite and a liar.

    You are bitter because you ruined your own promising career with your AIDS Denial nonsense. You are not credible as a source of anything legitimate because you embrace every fringey, nutty conspiracy theory there is. Vaccines, climate change, JFK, 9/11. I know, I know. It’s all because you are smarter than everyone else. Give me a break. Trying to have a legitimate conversation here is futile. Grow up. I’m sure your kid and your father are proud. So proud.

    1. Julian Assange was framed – set up – then finally exonerated.

      Are you sure you want to stand on that one?

      AIDS denial? Really? You don’t know how easy it was to get doctors reporting *any* weak immunity-induced illnesses as “AIDS”??? And what a fraud it was?

      JFK a “nutty conspiracy”??? After the deathbed confessions of E. Howard Hunt and some of his cohorts?

      You are way, way behind on your basic knowledge base and in no condition to be criticizing Celia.

      1. Oh, Scotty! Yep, you got me. I had no idea you were one of the chosen few that knows all the truth the rest of us lemmings are too blind to see. LOL! You better watch out. With that kind of knowledge, you may be a marked man. Hahahahahaaaaa…..

  4. Celia, I am flattered that you made a unique post all for moi. However, my confusion was from the fact that you did not respond to me in the comment section where we originally communicated. I thought that would be the appropriate place for your response. I did not realize this blog was also a cat-n-mouse game. But no problem.

    Below I will paste my original response to you. But first I would like to point out that I find it ironic that you seem to demean and diminish Ms. Maddow because she is “rich” and has “cashed in”. Yet you posted Sean Hannity at your facebook page on the topic of the Nunes Memo. I do believe Mr. Hannity is much, much richer than Maddow. Also, if Ms. Maddow wanted to truly cash in, she could also be on FOX as she and Roger Ailes were very good friends. Maddow spoke of it on Howard Stern as well as other places. But here at your blog, you keep referring to Binney and Roark, ignoring Hannity, Cernick, Alex Jones and other less credible people.

    Binney and Roark seem to have a specific knowledge about a specific program and yes, it does seem that nefarious people, specifically Michael Hayden, put a bad system in place of theirs. Yes, it does seem Hayden and others were corrupt. However, as I wrote in my previous post, not all people in any agency or organization are corrupt and evil. And often they are exposed by good people like Binney, Roark, Snowden and others. But not Assange. I do not believe his intentions are pure; perhaps they once were, but not now.

    But I think you are losing site of the original issue: The Nunes Memo. As I wrote earlier, you admitted you did not know a very key piece of information about how the dossier originally started. It was with a billionaire Republican. I also pointed out that Maddow reported on that fact many, many months ago. (That is why you started disparaging Maddow, although she did have that fact long ago.) Maddow has painstakingly documented the innumerable contacts of Trump, his children and his administration with the Russians. My point was that when you focus narrowly on certain reporters/news organizations you might miss many facts. And perhaps you should vet the very short (3 page memo) a little better before making such grand pronouncements about The Deep State.

    I know you think this is the biggest story of a generation, but don’t forget that many people thought the same of Obama and his supposed ties to The Muslim Brotherhood. They said America would be a Muslim country soon and in 8 years, Obama never even attempted it.

    I was going to re-post my original comment, but you can find it on the other thread if you are so inclined. I highly doubt anything I say will deter you from your had-held beliefs.

      1. Scott, where in the world did you get that Celia had trouble getting a comment to post? She never wrote that anywhere.

        I saw her original response and I responded to that and assumed she would continue our dialogue there. Her making a unique to thread to post the response she already posted was whacky, to say the least. But then again, trying to figure out Celia Farber is futile. Also, trying to figure you out is equally futile. Perhaps that is why you are trying so hard to protect her. But you are coming off as desperate and out of your league.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.