News in General

Why is the Vatican coming apart at the seams
with all these recent pedophile scandals?

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican said Saturday that recent attacks on the church over its handling of clerical sex abuse cases have been harmful, but insisted the pope's authority had not been weakened.

Instead, the Vatican spokesman said, Pope Benedict XVI's authority and the commitment of the Vatican doctrinal and disciplinary office "have been confirmed in their support and guidance to bishops to combat and root out the blight of abuse wherever it appears."

"The way in which the church deals with it is crucial for her moral credibility," said the spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, in a comment on Vatican Radio.

Revelations of the sexual abuse of children by priests at Catholic institutions have swept across Europe and into Benedict's native Germany. The pope himself has come under fire for a case dating to his tenure as archbishop of Munich and another dating to his stint as the head of the Vatican office responsible for disciplining priests.

What is going on? Why is the Vatican coming apart at the seams
with all these recent pedophile scandals?

What is going on? Why is the Vatican coming apart at the seams
with all these recent pedophile scandals?

Rand said she “set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them” and to portray “what happens to a world without them.”

• I have a little tete a tete with you tgII. I disagree with you about Ayn Rand. Excuse me folks. If you want to debate fine, and I might be wrong about her, but not on her work.

• A lot of her work is based on self empowerment that's why she was extreme. But people are so deprived and full of evil that think self empowerment is about stepping all over everything. And that is not true at all.

• She was rough on others, because otherwise they wouldn't be able snap out of it.

• She was showing us what willpower is and what it can do, but a person wouldn't know what that was even if it hit them in the face.

• And in a human that is filled with corruption already, willpower could be used to harm others like a weapon.

• So in that case, it wasn't Ayn Rand's fault that Greenspan, of puny mind, mistaken her motto that individuals have the right to live entirely for their own interest. He used her like other big named people did.

• You know her work inspired people so much that they were able to manifest, just as Greenspan did, but he used it for selfish reasons.

• She had no control over what others would do with her work.

• And of course it always gets twisted up. She had no responsiblilty for others who took her blueprint and created a monster. People can take her blueprint and do wonderful things, but no evil always has to mess things up. Just look at the AtlasShrugged website, not one quote or anything from Ayn Rand only about current politics and this and that.

Rand believes (at least implicitly) that political and social reality is simple enough to be adequately represented in abstract principles derived from “reason” (i.e., conscious deliberate reasonings guided by “logic”). Burke, as an experienced statesmen, knows that Rand’s view of political and social reality is false: the reality confronting the statesman is simply far too complex to be summed up in a few abstract rules.

Burke would regard Rand’s politics as merely “metaphysical” (by which he would mean: founded, not on experience, but on rationalistic speculation). Rand’s notion of establishing the state on her very simple concept of individual rights—a concept, moreover, which can never be compromised upon, regardless of the consequences—Burke would find as “fundamentally defective.” And Rand’s implicit confidence in her own reasoning powers, which allowed her to arrive at principles concerning matters that she knew little if anything about, Burke would view with dismay. In contradistinction to the speculative rationalism of Rand’s politics, Burke would assert his most element insight—namely, that the science of government requires extensive (and intensive) experience, “even more experience than any person can gain in his whole life, however sagacious and observing he may be.” This is the key insight that most differentiates the political thinking of Burke, Hayek, Oakeshott, Sowell, Michael Polanyi, and other sophisticated conservatives from Rand and her disciples.

History is replete with examples of individuals who benefited from slavery over a long life.

Rand’s theory of human nature is based on the idea that the human mind enjoys complete sovereignty over the body and the will. “Everything we do and are proceeds from the mind,” Rand once declared. ”Our mind can be made to control everything.”

his conviction that man creates himself is fundamental to her entire philosophy. In order for a man to be genuinely ideal in Rand’s eyes, he had to be able to take full credit for all his characteristics. He couldn’t merely have been endowed with them at birth – no, he had to create them out of nothing with his own unaided effort, like Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of the mire by his own hair.

The average person on the street doesn't understand what self-empowerment is, few Americans read any more than three books a year, probably shit novels, if they did we probably wouldn't be where we are now, at least in America where the current empire is now on its death watch. Ayn Rand unleashed the metaphysical Satan on us, be careful, ideas have profound and lasting effect.

A few thoughts: Will power without constraint or restraint and a voice on the opposite receiving the will of the opponent is hell on earth. Imagine for a moment, your IQ comes in at 165, you work on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs pays your bills, over the weekend after having champagne, good sex and reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrug from page 986 between orgasms, you become inspired. Monday morning you return to work in new York with a vengeance and you pillage a pension fund of $150 million dollars because it took 'will power' to ravage the accounts of innocent people to pay off a merger transaction. Atlas didn't shrug, he just shit all over those 3,000 plus employees who just lost their pension. Ideas have consequences.

She headed straight for Hollywood. She didn't inspire many people I know. In fact, many of us spent hours and days debating any merits she is supposed to have contributed to how Americans thought. It's like Edward Bernays, he was praised and brought to New York and from his work Americans became thoroughly brainwashed and under the control of his nefarious manipulation of the mass mind. Ayn Rand and Edward Bernays, two peas in the same pod, no, wait, make that three peas in the same pod, put Milton Freedom in their too, the father of free trade. These people have disturbed the minds of previously sane people.

orn in St. Petersburg in 1905, Alyssa Rosenbaum saw her first movie and read

her first work of fiction at the age of 9, and she promptly decided to become a

writer of books and movies.

Look at the results

All Ayn Rand did was to dust off Aristotle and put his philosophy on overdrive. Reason became his God and it became the God of Ayn Rand. The biggest fallacy of Ayn Rand and which readers of her work are not protected against, is that Edmund Burke regarded with great suspicion any theory of rights which appeared founded, not on extensive experience, but merely on rationalistic speculation and “metaphysics.”

For the best critique and elaboration of Ayn Rand's dead objectivist philosophy, I suggest Greg S. Nyquist who lays it bare for those who casually read Ayn Rand with unprepared minds.

"Aristotle's philosophy was the intellect's Declaration of Independence.
Aristotle, the father of logic, should be given the title of the world's
first intellectual, in the purest and noblest sense of that word. No
matter what remnants of Platonism did exist in Aristotle's system, his
incomparable achievement lay in the fact that he defined the basic
principles of a rational view of existence and of man's consciousness:
that there is only one reality, the one which man perceives--that it
exists as an objective absolute (which means: independently of the
consciousness, the wishes or the feelings of any perceiver)--that the
task of man's consciousness is to perceive, not to create, reality--that
abstractions are man's method of integrating his sensory material--that
man's mind is his only tool of knowledge--that A is A.

If we consider the fact that to this day everything that makes us
civilized beings, every rational value that we possess -- including the
birth of science, the industrial revolution, the creation of the
United States, even of the structure of our language -- is the result
of Aristotle's influence, of the degree to which, explicitly or
implicitly, men accepted his epistemological principles, we would
have to say: never have so many owed so much to one man."

Brandens' slant on Ayn Rand's life and work has been
in circulation since 1986, and as a result her saga has been
characterized in the minds of many as yet another soap opera of
sex and betrayal, only this time with a cast of dysfunctional
intellectuals between the sheets.

Nathaniel Branden, according to the accepted scenario, was a
20 year-old newly married fan of Rand, who had committed her book
"The Fountainhead" to memory. Evidently, his own brilliance
inspired Rand, age 45 and already married to actor/painter
Frank O'Connor for 25 years, to take Branden as her lover,
and then become partners with him in the Nathaniel Branden
Institute, formed to spread her philosophy of Objectivism and
to recruit a growing number of adherents. According to the

Brandens, Nathaniel's wife Barbara and Rand's husband Frank O'Connor
generously gave their blessing to the affair. The 1960's, after
all, were the days of sexual license, and various kinds of
'open marriages' were acceptable in some quarters.

Looking back, these unconventional relationships were almost
diametrically opposed to the demanding personal standards for
integrity advocated in "The Objectivist," the newsletter
of the same name on which Branden and his mentor collaborated.

How was all this consistent with "Randian Philosophy"?
Were these behaviors somehow to be interpreted as examples
of the "rational self-interest" Rand believed in as the highest
virtue, the highest good, in Aristotelian terms? Didn't Rand's
conduct ultimately discredit her own philosophy, as many
disillusioned followers came to regret? Or was the story of
these peoples' tangled lives presented to the public, years later,
in such a way as to deliberately deceive?

The current analysis of James S. Valliant zeroes in, however, on the discrepancies
in the accounts of Nathaniel Branden and his first wife Barbara. He painstakingly sifts
through the accounts in their books, comparing them with Ayn Rand's own journals,
and he discovers what he believes is a pattern of lies, specifically intended to
smear Rand's character and undermine many of her original philosophic positions,
which Brandon surprisingly maintains in his later years he never honestly agreed
with in the first place, even while assuming a major role in teaching them to others

he year 1968 saw an historic upheaval in the ranks. It is known to this day
as "The Break". Finally, Ayn Rand perceived the truth that she had been used
and manipulated in various ways by this couple for 15 years or more. She
officially expelled them from the Objectivist ranks and severed all ties
legally and financially. In Rand's 1968 written report in "The Objectivist
Newsletter," she accused Nathaniel Branden of failing in his professional
responsibilities, deliberately deceiving people, and exploiting her financially.

he Brandens, once Ayn Rand died in 1982, and with all the
other members of the inner circle related to them by family
and other close ties, subsequently felt secure to spread the
story that at the time of "The Break," Ayn Rand showed her true
colors, having always been dictatorial, intolerant, vindictive,
and jealous. She behaved, then, true to type, as "a woman scorned."

And yet a nagging question remains in my mind.
Admittedly bold-faced liars, is the Brandens' claim that Nathaniel
was really the lover of Ayn Rand to be believed? With a Rothschild
connection to Greenspan, is there also a Rothschild connection to
Branden? There is virtually no material available regarding his
contacts during his university days in California, while earning a
BA in psychology at UCLA. There is no information to be found
concerning his parents or his childhood, other than his own anecdotal story
that after failing his freshman year of high school in Brampton, Ontario, Canada,
he was allowed to enroll in an adult school with an accelerated program, and then
graduated two years early. He worked in the family jewelry store in Toronto for a
year before going off to college to California.

It was well-known among "The Collective" group in New York that as a young man
Branden had committed every single line of "The Fountainhead" to memory.
He would playfully challenge people to read a sentence from the book, skip a
sentence, and then read the next. Branden infallibly could supply the missing
sentence, word-for-word. No, he did not claim to have a photogenic memory.

But I believe it is significant that the post-war years in California saw the
beginning of many projects in psychological research, and Nathaniel
Blumenthal/Branden was a psychology major. His 'parlour magic' mental gymnastics
could well indicate his own programming experiences. More than one California
university has been implicated in sophisticated intelligence agency work. Could
Branden's original meeting with Ayn Rand, the result of a series of persistent
and highly flattering unanswered letters on his part, have had more to do with
a psyops operation with her as the target, than with a simple aggressive crush
on the part of a bright, ambitious student?

Enter Philippe de Rothschild. He made his name in the film business
in 1932, as the producer in France of the "Lac-aux-Dames," the first
French "talkie" to gain international recognition. Adapted from a novel
by noted writer Vicki Baum and directed by Marc Allegret, it had a script
by the often sexually explicit French author Colette, starring top
legendary film icons Jean-Pierre Aumont and Simone Simon.
Ayn Rand was still in Hollywood in 1934. That was the year the famous
film "The House of Rothschild," starring George Arliss, was produced
by Darryl F. Zanuck for 20th Century-Fox.
Since Philippe de Rothschild was a producer and screenwriter himself,
it is incredible to believe that he did not come to California to
observe the production of this film.

He chose to elaborate: "There is a dense and rich and totally
fabricated mythology about Rand -- and I have heard things about
her which range from the downright impossible, to the improbable
to the merely undocumented. I had seen this before on the web.
I entirely discount it. During her own lifetime, at a television
interview, Rand was once asked if there was a relationship between her
work and the Illuminati. She denied it in such a way as to indicate
that she didn't know what the hell the woman was talking about --
the expression on her face was still more eloquent."

There is no doubt that many experts who have exposed the history
of the Illuminati (a name, by the way, not very current 40 years ago)
do indeed view Ayn Rand as a willing tool of that elite world conspiracy
which has been orchestrating the events of modern history for 300 years,
to bring about in our lifetime or eventually an occultic, one-world,
oppressive, monolithic, 'Big Brother' government.

Her book was dismissed as an homage to greed.

The book was released to terrible reviews. Critics faulted its length, its philosophy and its literary ambitions. Both conservatives and liberals were unstinting in disparaging the book; the right saw promotion of godlessness, and the left saw a message of “greed is good.” Rand is said to have cried every day as the reviews came out.

A recent New York Times article (July 21, 2002) focused on Alan Greenspan’s remarks to the effect that “infectious greed” is responsible for recent business scandals, and that more government regulation might be needed. These views, the piece points out, seem to contradict the philosophy of his mentor, Ayn Rand, and his own statements of four decades ago. For Rand, laissez-faire capitalism is the system in which individuals produce goods and services that they trade with one another based on mutual consent, not on the use of force or fraud. Capitalism is a moral system based on respect for the equal rights of individuals to pursue their own rational self-interest, and it rewards people for their achievements.

Political philosopher and Ayn Rand expert, Dr. Edward Hudgins notes, “Rand was virtually alone in celebrating the virtues of productive, innovative individuals and the wealth they create. She emphasized that businessmen at their best will first and foremost love their work and the challenge of creating products and services that earn them profits. If that’s greed, it’s to be praised! Rand also singled out for condemnation businessmen who seek money by any means, including fraud, or government handouts and special favors. If that’s greed, it’s to be damned!"

The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes... Ayn Rand.

Zionism and Neoconserviatism are a close kin to Communism. It is no coincidence that Jews were decisive in both. And Christian holy men, but primarily secular Christians, were decisive in defeating Communism, in part by deporting Communists, many of them Jews, to the Soviet Union, until it died a natural death. I believe Zionism will die such a death, and in doing so will affirm Christianity. If Zionism is not allowed to die a natural death, but instead artificially eliminated, the entire cycle will begin again, with diasopra Jews blaming the world for enabling, allowing, or participating in the elimination of Israel, and wreaking havoc in the gentile world until they are provided a state.

When did the children of Israel turn into “jewish”. Khazar Ashkenazim are not semitic, not hebrew, and not from the tribe of Judah. When you read Obadiah, understand who Edom is. Edom is in modern jewry. Israel has never been “jewish”, simply because “jews” are not Israel …the people…see Revelation 7. Most ashkenazim will cease and desist{being “jewish”} upon learning the truth concerning who Israel really is…England, usa, France. Scandanavia…see willie martin files outline. And read Matthew 13.

On the Holocaust, I once had an aquaintance who was a Jew. He once very sincerely expounded to me his view of the Holocaust. According to his explanation; which did not make any reference to Our Lord Jesus Christ directly, he claimed that the Holocaust was Israel’s redemption. And he explained it in an almost “Biblical” way.

He said that the victims of the Holocaust were the price paid in full to God for the sins of Israel, past present and future. That through the blood of the Holocaust victims, Israel had been Redeemed to their God. That the Holocaust victims were the required propitiation.

What he was saying was that the Holocaust was the Suffering Messiah of Isaiah LII and the Psalms of David. He had completely replaced the saving work of Our Lord with the Holocaust.

Interestingly, this salvation was limited to the Jews, and did not include any gentiles. I was well enough acquainted with him to know that he truly and sincerely believed what he was saying. I don’t know if this idea is popular among Jews, or if it is ‘taught’ as a doctrine; but, my aquaintence was very good at communicating his replacement theology, and as I said held to it strongly.

If this idea is in fact extant abroad among the Jew, it gives the religion of Holocaustianty a whole new perspective.

Brother Kapner may know if this is a popular notion among some Jews. This “theology” was told to me about the year 1990.

If the war started like i believe it will,america is going to burn.The prostitute of zionist israel is finish.By 2013 the federal jewish dollar is going to be worthless piece of paper.1913-2013.If the war started please get out of the city.America is going to burn with fire.Revelation 18.God is angry with so much blood on american hands.REVELATION 18;5 FOR HER SINS HAVE REACHED UNTO HEAVEN,AND GOD HATH REMEMBERED HER INIQUITIES.18;6REWARD HER EVEN AS SHE REWARDED YOU,AND DOUBLE UNTO HER DOUBLE ACCORDING TO HER WORKS;IN THE CUP WHICH SHE HATH FILLED FILL TO HER DOUBLE. 18;7 HAW MUCH SHE HATH GLORIFIED HERSELF,AND LIVED DELICIOUSLY,SO MUCH TORMENT AND SORROW GIVE HER;FOR SHE SAITH IN HER HEART,I SIT A QUEEN,AND AM NO WIDOW,AND SHALL SEE NO SORROW.18;8 THEREFORE SHALL HER PLAQUES COME IN ONE DAY,DEATH,AND MOURNING,AND FAMINE;AND SHE SHALL BE UTTERLY BURNED WITH FIRE;FOR STRONG IS THE LORD GOD WHO JUDGETH HER. KEEP ON READING AND START TO CRY AND ASK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS.GOD HELP US ALL. THE JEWS FROM KAZARIA(GOG AND MAGOG)DID IT AGAIN.

The Anti-Defamation League is nothing more than the attack group, of the Freemasonic Jewish Organization, known as the B’nigh B’rith International.

According to Historian’s on the secret societies - such as Fr.Denis Fahey, Rev.Cahill,S.J., and Count DePoncins - this is the most secretive of all the secret societies. When we talk about the Illuminati, you could refer to this as the secret Jewish masonic organization, The International Order of Benai Berith.

The newest historian to discover this is non-other than Christopher Bollyn.

He wrote: Members of B’nai B’rith have immense power in the U.S. government and control the 9-11 “investigation.”

He calls them: The Zionist Crimocracy and B’nai B’rith.

He has an audio file on this titled: “Gangsta’s Paradise” - In this audio file from April 2008,on Bollyn.com

On 12 May 2008 Bollyn posted this:

A Letter from a Supporter

“To not understand the deeply malicious temporal and spiritual force behind the dark brotherhood that pulled off 9-11 is to not fully comprehend the evil dynamics behind that tragedy.”

I received this note from a very astute and articulate Christian supporter about my recent articles about the secret Jewish brotherhood, the B’nai B’rith, which is the parent organization of the criminal Anti-Defamation League.

I am profoundly edified to see that Chris is continuing to tread ever deeper into areas where very, very few dare to go. And of those that do so, some very justifiably resort to pen names in order to survive.

Chris, you seem to really be leading the pack in driving an investigative spike into the dark belly of the seemingly darkest of temporal beasts. (It is certainly no wonder that so few dare to bring your expository work to the light of day.) This beast, as you all too well know, is fundamentally grounded in the truly demonic anti-Christ Jewish supremacist/racist theory and practice laid out in the greatest Jewish “holy book,” the Talmud.

The devil does not want people to think that he even exists so as to more effectively go about his destructive and damning business; so it is with those most knowing adherents of the Talmud such as Rabbi Dov Zakheim. They don’t want the world to know of the Talmud, or at the very least not all the perverted filth and diabolical anti-Christ blasphemies it contains.

The beast that you name is the “Zionist secret brotherhood of B’nai B’rith.” If the truth be known, it is this beast which draws its deepest inspirations and driving force from Satan, himself. It is completely anti-Christ in its purpose for existence and its agenda for bringing that purpose to fruition. This is a truth which absolutely cannot be played down, nor much less ignored. To not understand the deeply malicious temporal and spiritual force behind the dark brotherhood that pulled off 9-11 is to not fully comprehend the evil dynamics behind that tragedy.

Simply stated, there is much more to 9-11 than the mere superficial evil of the act itself, as horrific as that was. The collective malevolent mask of the main perpetrators must be ripped off and torn asunder. These perpetrators work in direct league with that supreme, but fallen angel who as we are informed from Sacred Scripture is the “prince of this world.” Being the prince of this world is no small feat. It is certainly no wonder then that the Zionist secret Brotherhood of B’nai B’rith which works in direct league with this spirit from the eternal pit of hell (a liar and a murderer from the beginning — cf. John 8:44) is an extremely formidable worldly power.

I dare say that your truly steadfast and obviously very courageous work in exposing the hell driven network of miscreants behind 9-11 clearly transcends the merely temporal. It helps us to understand the spiritual evil behind that immense crime. May we all pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended on us in ever seeking deliverance from the truly powerful children of darkness who make up and/or promote the hell driven anti-Christ agenda of the B’nai B’rith.

Those in this evil freemasonic group need to stop worshipping Lucifer, and turn to the one true God Jesus Christ, and repent, and enter the Catholic Church soon, before it’s too late! I pray that all of you evil masonic Jews are saved, and that we can enjoy each other’s company in Paradise, worshipping the Triune God, forever, and ever, Amen

It is far more probable that Ayn Rand was ignorant of Israel’s brutality and deceit than that she thought Israel’s brutality and deceit were comparatively unimportant.

She was mistaken about the nature of Israel and sincerely believed that helping the Israeli government was in our interest. A mistake preserved in amber which ARI’s (Ayn Rand Institute) supporters bring forth at every opportunity. [6]
Source: Ayn Rand Institute Watch

Many times Ayn Rand praised isolationism in its old-fashioned, America First, sense. For example, in her essay “The Chickens Homecoming” (reprinted by her in The New Left) she attacked

“the premises that we owe a duty to the rest of the world, that we are responsible for the welfare of any nation anywhere on earth, that isolationism is selfish, immoral and impractical in a ‘shrinking’ modern world, etc.”

Her attack is applicable not only to Europe and Vietnam but to any country.

Evidently – for we believe Ayn Rand was consistent – in 1975 she thought that foreign aid to Israel was in the interest of the U.S., that it was not an act of national self-sacrifice.

Specifically, judging from her answers to questions at talks she gave around this time, she supported Israel for two reasons. She believed that without U.S. support, Russia – which was supporting the Arabs – would control the Mediterranean and its oil. And she saw the fight between Israel and the Arabs as a fight between civilized men and savages.

Was socialist Israel our ally against communist Russia? During the Cold War Israel packaged itself as a bulwark against communism, an enemy of our enemy, the Soviet Union. It turned out Israel was pulling the wool over our eyes. For examples of Israel’s treachery read about the Pollard Affair and other betrayals in This is Our Ally? on this website. Israel was against Russia only to the extent that Russia helped Arabia, otherwise Israel helped Russia if Russia helped them. Ayn Rand evidently believed Israel’s propaganda about it being our ally against Russia, not realizing the propaganda was lies.

She also evidently believed that Israel had a more civilized government than it did. When Ayn Rand spoke at the Ford Hall Forum she frequently got asked about Israel – whose supporters are anything if not vociferous – during the question and answer periods, which were open to any question. Her reply would go along the following lines: I support Israel; though Israel is a socialist country, [2] in that region of the world Israel is the vanguard of civilization.

In other words, the gray of Israel is white compared to the surrounding near-black of Arabia. There is something to be said for that kind of argument, but of course it fails when the gray gets dark enough. Did Ayn Rand know how dark Israel really was? The year she wrote her essay, 1975, was long before Israeli torture came to light in the 1993 New York Times exposé, over 20 years after her death. 1975 was long before Israel’s massacre of Beirut in 1982, the year of her death. [3]

The Crown through Britain literally owns America.

"It's common knowledge that one out of every five individuals who claims to be a patriot is actually a government informant," said Randy Trochman, co-founder of the Militia of Montana. "Everybody in the movement should be thinking about who that fifth guy is."

How would studying Leibniz have improved your outlook and
experiences as a human being strapped to this shit house of
insanity compared to just Ayn Rand for example? You cannot
predict with any certainty how people will act and behave after
being subjected to the thoughts and ideas of what we casually
call 'philosophy.'

The point is, how does her
writing and philosophy effect you in the short term and in the long
term? How do you judge that influence if for example, you had
instead spent all that time reading the philosophy of let's say a
Leibniz, which between his philosophy and Ayn Rand's are two
completely conflicting interpretations of our conditions.

(CNN) -- Nine Massachusetts teenagers have been charged with involvement in a monthslong campaign of bullying that led to the January suicide of a 15-year-old girl, a prosecutor said.

Phoebe Prince's body was found hanging in the stairway leading to her family's second-floor apartment in South Hadley, Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth D. Scheibel told reporters Monday in the western Massachusetts town of Northampton.

"It appears that Phoebe's death on January 14 followed a torturous day for her when she was subjected to verbal harassment and physical abuse," Scheibel said.

Earlier that day, Phoebe had been harassed as she studied in the library at South Hadley High School, apparently in the presence of a faculty member and several students, none of whom reported it until after the girl's death, Scheibel said.

Phoebe, who had recently moved to the area with her family from Ireland, also was harassed as she walked through the halls of the school that day and as she walked on the street toward her home, the prosecutor said.

The harassment that day, by one male and two females, "appears to have been motivated by the group's displeasure with Phoebe's brief dating relationship with a male student that had ended six weeks earlier," she said.

But that day's events were not isolated; they "were the culmination of a nearly three-month campaign of verbally abusive, assaultive behavior and threats of physical harm toward Phoebe on school grounds by several South Hadley students," Scheibel added.

"Their conduct far exceeded the limits of normal teenage relationship-related quarrels. The investigation revealed relentless activity directed toward Phoebe designed to humiliate her and to make it impossible for her to remain at school."