I'll just go ahead and admit a few things here so that Church Militant can get all their legal ducks in a row if they're thinking of suing me, dragging me into court, making me lose my job (hahaha), doxing me, searching my dark mysterious past, etc. So here goes....
I've never had a fundraiser on the Internet for myself or others, I own my own little home left to my brother and me by our mother when she died (I bought my brother's half since he already had a home). I live alone, I've been married twice, I have 3 children, 6 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren. I'm poor, never lonely, converted to Catholicism 41 years ago, attended Novus Ordo parishes but now am a member of the SSPX.
I never smoked, I like a good glass of wine over dinner when dining out, and the only thing I'm addicted to is Goody Powders taken for constant headaches on the left side of my brain and face for the rest of my life. The headaches are the residual effects of shingles of the left cornea inside my eye where I almost went blind 9 years ago. The happiest moment of my life was when they gave me morphine in the hospital. I had 3 eye operations. Goody Powders sort of help but sometimes when it gets bad the doctor prescribes pain pills and I have to put drops in that eye every day for the rest of my life.
I graduated high school with great grades, university with dismal grades (too busy riding horses), went to school in Italy where I exercised horses for that year's champion Junior Italian Equestrian team because their riders were always skiing in Cortina or shopping in Paris, After returning to the US and barely graduating university, I galloped race horses at Hialeah back in the day, managed a Thoroughbred farm in Virginia once upon a time, went to yearling sales at Saratoga, worked 17 years in the Trust Department of a bank in Florida, and now work part time to help pay the ever increasing high cost of my bills.
I'm just a normal person with no social media presence on the Internet. Therefore, Church Militant would have no great stakes in trying to sue me. They can't ruin my life because I have no worldly influence, no fame or fortune to devastate, and since I have no money for an attorney I'd just have to go to jail for not responding to anything they threaten me with. The jail is just down the road on the waterfront so hopefully I'd get a cell with a view. And there are prisons all over Florida where "possibly" Church Militant and their team of lawyers would "more than likely" be ecstatic with joy to place a great-grandmother. The only thing I really fear is that Church Militant will find my geeky high school Senior photo and post it on the Internet. If that happens I'll post my college Senior photo where I looked a lot better.
I'll have to word everything here JUST SO, so Ms Niles won't feel the pressing need to email a Demand Letter again. Therefore I'll say things like "seems as if", or "possibly", or "more than likely" or I'll pose a question as opposed to actually making a statement, because (example here)...doesn't it seem as if otherwise it's possible that I'd more than likely get sued?
OK! All that said, I think it's fairly safe now to proceed with a few observances about Church Militant. These "observances" aren't personal opinions. They're FACTS, followed by what will "seem like" only my personal opinion but which "possibly" will not be because isn't it so that "more than likely" other people have the same "observances" too?
FIRST: Let's begin with what "seems like" a "possible" crime against aesthetic quality in the presentation of Church Militant's terribly (the use of the word "terribly" in this sentence is merely as an adverb modifying the adjective "jumbled" and therefore not a defamation offense meant for legal action) jumbled and less than pleasing and "seemingly" disordered website.
I would say "tacky" but could "possibly" get sued for defamation by Church Militant for stating that as fact instead of a "possible" mere personal opinion, which no one may have in these days of political correctness, especially in reference to Church Militant who lately seem to get their britches in a twist over almost anything, everything, and everybody. It's as if there's a sort of Church Militant-correctness that we must all obey.
Note - The above merely means that Church Militant "possibly" needs to upgrade their artistic quality to something more pleasing to the eye. Nothing more. It is not a statement meant for a court of law. It in no way means that their website is "possibly" a "seemingly" abominable mess and terribly (there's that word again!) difficult to maneuver.
SECOND: It "seems as if" Church Militant longs to be the only arbiter of Catholic news across the planet. Is it possible that since they "seemingly" want to be the only Catholic news source, they therefore "might actually possibly" believe that they're the only people qualified to judge what can and cannot be said and done, not only in the Catholic world, but also in the secular world?
This observance can be detected (if you can find it) on their website in a big blue box with bright red words on the right side of the first page after you scroll down through all the other terribly (again, the use of "terribly" is merely as an adverb) colorful eye-catching and "apparently" shameless advertisements for various Church Militant features and functions. Superimposed over the Fox News logo... (Is that legal? Did Church Militant obtain permission from Fox News for the use of their logo? Could Fox News have a "potential" case against Church Militant for using their logo, "possibly" illegally, in such a "potentially" and "seemingly" adverse way?) ...Church Militant's artistic tech team have placed big red words saying "STOP WATCHING FOX NEWS. DO THIS INSTEAD. CLICK HERE". After clicking on the designated arrow, you're led to Church Militant's INFO HOUR EVENING NEWS!
Note - Doesn't it "seem as if " the "possible" power hungry Church Militant wants to replace Fox News? Is Church Militant's plan not only to "possibly" globally dominate all other Catholic news sources once they "perhaps" sue and/or "seemingly" abase and obliterate (Here the word "seemingly" is used as an adverb also to modify the verb "obliterate" as well as the prior verb "abase". The sentence is not used as a statement of fact nor is it to be used as a defamation case in a court of law.) their "apparent" hit list of opponents - The Remnant, LifeSite News, Catholic Family News, Matt Gaspers, RTF, Mike Parrott, Jeff Cassman, Benedict Carter and others - but to also "seemingly" take over all secular US and world news organizations including the "possible" erasure of Fox News? Someone please warn Fox News that their very existence is in jeopardy!
THIRD: Apparently all comments on videos or articles not in accordance with the narrative or agenda of Church Militant are "seemingly" deleted. (Actually that sentence is a statement of fact since "This comment was deleted" can be seen in various comment boxes under several Church Militant videos and articles.) For instance, one Billy Chickens made a comment about James Grein's speech at the "Enough is Enough" "prayer" rally. At 7:45 on his video James Grein states: "Carlo Maria Vigano and I have conversations ON A REGULAR BASIS....There's Cardinal Sarah and there's Cardinal Zen that I talk to also."
User Billy Chickens merely commented saying, "We are to believe that James Grein talks to Archbishop Vigano and Cardinals Zen and Sarah ON A REGULAR BASIS? Really? Proof please. Phone records, etc."
That comment, not deleted or removed by Mr Chickens, is now deleted by Church Militant. Why? Does it "seemingly" cast doubt on James Grein's veracity as to ALL the events he proclaims to have happened?
He might have indeed talked to or emailed Archbishop Vigano at first and for awhile...but now? Still? And on a REGULAR BASIS three years later after his initial appearance on Church Militant in 2018? And why would he have talked to or still be talking to Cardinals Zen and Sarah on a REGULAR BASIS? If he did or still does, let's see proof. One cannot make such statements "seemingly" out of the blue without other people wanting proof of what's true and what isn't.
However, "seemingly" all comments contrary to Church Militant's narrative must "apparently" be deleted because it sows doubt against Church Militant and they can't have that, can they?
Note - It "seems as if" Church Militant is "possibly" using the same tactics as the Mainstream Media by not letting all factions have a voice. Can it "possibly" be that any voice with even so much as a whiff of what Church Militant "seemingly" sniffs at as defamation is then "apparently" presented with "what appears to be" a lawsuit? Not only that, but any person "seemingly" affiliated in any way with the offending person or organization is "apparently" additionally humiliated by Church Militant in order to "possibly" defame the original culprit even more for having such a "seemingly" Church Militant-appointed reprobate as an acquaintance, friend, or business partner. Is this Christian charity?
FOURTH: While Ms Niles' stream of "what appears to be" her thought process "seemingly" slithers around coiling in a circle eventually and at last finally forming her point by using "seemingly" partial information to strike at her victim of the day, salivating over their real or preconceived digressions, she "apparently" never admits to ever "possibly" twisting the facts herself in order to "seemingly" make other people look as if they're the worst perverts on the planet, deserving of Church Militant's scorn. Why should we ever believe what Church Militant says?
Note - We shouldn't. And that's a fact.