79 votes

Mitt Romney Questioned on FED, Goldman Sachs, Luke Rudkowski kicked out

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Who in their right mind uses

Who in their right mind uses a term like "banksters" when talking to someone outside "our bubble"? Those gimmicky insults simply tip off the interviewee as to your position, which will harden their position. Is it so difficult to pose a question in "mainstream" lingo and pose as a more credible interviewer? That's a total rookie move.

i like luke part 2

oops i was saying they get criticized for making money,they do have to travel alot and there filming equipment cost alot.i know if i was chasing down illuminati new worl order evil people i would want a big pay check


i like luke

so un till i here his side of the stori cant say any thing bad.its funny how all these truth seekers have sh3t like this happen.like alex jones.he makes good money for what he does but people critasise


Some major evidence AGAINST Luke Rudowski

"For the Past 2 years many of us have been fighting for transparency within the 9/11 Truth movement. Specifically, within Wearechange New York City as it pertains to the finances. We feel extremely reluctant to discuss the current situation with "WE ARE CHANGE", but it needs to be addressed if we are going to move forward in this movement. This situation has been extremely disruptive, and we hope we can all come to a resolution in a civil and honest manner.

It should be known that we have tried to deal with this in a private setting, hoping to shield the rest of the movement from this unnecessary drama. However, Luke Rudkowski has put us in a position where that is no longer possible.
Luke Rudkowski routed all donations totaling over $85,000 (according to the chip-in flash application gauge) to his PRIVATE BANK ACCOUNT"


I think Luke could do a better job but I trust him more

...than I trust most reporters I don't know. Also, I don't care what he uses his donations for. If people donate to him and he is trying to expose corruption and lies, he can use those donations however he chooses. It said he has received less than 80k. The criminal gang in washington and on wall-street are stealing trillions so I think we should keep things in perspective.

The reason given as to why the members "allow" Luke to use the money how he chooses is stated in the article:

"The members allow this because of fear of being ostracized by the group and falsely accused of being cointelpro."

If that's the reason they are "afraid" of saying anything...well, they are a bunch of losers. I suspect they don't really care how Luke spends the money. I suspect "the organization" is wanting to get some of the money for themselves.

This might be 100% made up.

This might be 100% made up. none of the links in it worked for me.

You're right. I didn't even try the links.

Because, basically, I really don't care one iota about Luke R. or WeAreChange. I only posted this because usually cryptome.com is a pretty reliable source, and I think it's important to keep an open mind about "who" is leading a movement and "why." There are many who question Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and Gordon Duff also, though their followers would be outraged at such questioning.

Movements are so easily infiltrated and directed by the globalists, that a conflicting report which challenges a popular, agreed upon perception should always be investigated.

No disrespect meant to those who are big Luke Rudowski fans. I have no investment whatsoever, in either defending him or attacking him.

And since the links don't work (sorry for not trying them) it certainly could be a false report. On the other hand, you could question whether the links were disabled for other reasons, ie. coverup.

My position is that we should always be on guard and never follow anyone blindly. Our attachments to those we believe represent us, can put us at a disadvantage. Just look at the blowback Jesse Benton is getting lately. This is really just a warning to always be open to conflicting possibilities.

I agree that you need to question everything.

Even, especially those within the movement. But I also know that there will be a ton of efforts to divide and concur us. I also know that we are human and will make mistakes, so we have to sort that out as well. The best we can do is use reason and logic with the info we have. I don't think the links not working are the result of a coverup. I don't think Luke would have that much influence - $80K only goes so far.

reedr3v's picture

I don't see that it helps your organization move

forward by bringing allegations to a forum that is not involved, where most of us have no direct evidence one way or the other. From having viewed Rudowski's work over the years, I will wait for a positive response to this issue. Your one-sided view is not credible. You should work this out with the people involved directly.

Another awesomely put

Another awesomely put together vid that should be passed on to your Romny/Obama loving friends.

Obama, Romney and Goldman Sachs - 2012

thx. that is good!

thx. that is good!

We are change rocks

We are change rocks

I have three words

To describe Romney...


For The Power of The Republic!

R-R-R-Romney and the Fed

"You know I read it in a magazine..."

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

forgot to ask him about building 7, luke!

and the reason why obama's donors are supporting romney:

because they want an opponent that Obama can cream in the general election

An argument can be made . . .

. . . for politeness and better "interviewing" skills, as if Luke was like Bob Schieffer interviewing Ron Paul or something. But he is not like Shieffer, with his "legitemacy" of a suit and tie, well paid, universally recognized MSM schill tearing to pieces anyone who dares to stand up to the elite agenda.

This is a young, relatively unknown guy, representing the rest of us who have no voice, and stay home screaming at people like Romney, from the comfort of our homes, while watching TV. He deserves credit for sticking his neck out to try and get a response from these people, who are sure they own the world, because, well I'll be damned, THEY DO! People like Romney are used to being accepted for the phony image they carefully cultivate and the MSM helps promote. THey don't like penetrating questions, nor demands for answers, especially from "punks" like Rudkowski, who they feel they are way too far above to be answering about anything to.

And they don't mind using hired police or security personnel to intimidate anyone who dares to step in "their" territory. Like the school that Romney invaded with his big ass bus and all his entourage. Naturally, that is understood to be Romney ground when he is there and personal liberties be damned.

Personally, I think it is remarkable when someone is willing to step up and confront these people who can destroy our lives so easily yet refuse to answer for it. Where's the beef?

There's no "beef".

Your rant is an inappropriate reaction to constructive criticism and encouragement.

Luke seems man enough to take it. What's your problem?

Television: Why do you think they call it "programming"?

I save my ranting for the TV at home

There was a comment before mine that got pulled, I assume by the creator, that made the argument that it always pays to be polite to people like Romney, for instance, and that Luke needed to develop better interviewing skills. I differ with that so called constructive critcism.

I was objecting to this because it is my observation that elites like Romney could care less about people making less than a million a year. His poll stats after primary caucuses say that he commands the over-$100,000/yr. group.

Anyway, to keep this simple, I was supporting Luke Rudkowski and villifying Romney and his type. When elites can buy power, protection, spin-doctors, and kiss-ass press . . . how the hell do some expect little people to even confront these people? By being polite and humble? I don't see that happening. Hope this clears up your misunderstanding. "where's the beef" referred to an old Burger King commercial that was popular once upon a time. I was asking that question of those who made comments that seemed to go after Luke for being too hard on poor Mitt.

I misunderstood.

Pardon me.

Television: Why do you think they call it "programming"?

He's being satirical,

look deeper. "Personally, I think it is remarkable when someone is willing to step up and confront these people who can destroy our lives so easily yet refuse to answer for it."


for the backup.

Your comment was perfectly clear to me.

I just thought others might need their eyes opened.

Some constructive criticism

Some constructive criticism for the maker of the video: your questions seemed more like accusations than inquiries. Interviewing somebody can be far more effective when asking honest questions without judgment, even if you already know what the answer is. Respect the interviewee, but ask hard questions.

Way to get in there and be assertive, though!

Some constructive criticism,,,,,if you think you can do a better

job, why aren't you out there questioning these protected puppets.

Luke is an intelligent, courageous young man. Several years ago at the age of about 18, he was a supporter of the Brown's and actually brave enough to scope out their property while it was being surveilled by the feds in a stand off. I've seen him in action in chantilly during the bilderberg meeting. Considering what he's up against and what he's working with, he does a fine job. He is the founder of wearechange.org which is now worldwide. He knows what he's doing and has been groomed by one of the best. He is a True Patriot!!


I agree! Luke is an amazing

I agree! Luke is an amazing young man who is out there fighting for very good causes. I cheer his intentions, but I just think his delivery of these intentions is ineffective.

I'm not out there questioning "these protected puppets" because I'm fighting for other causes that I believe to be important, such as educating people about proper nutrition (read up on Weston Price, if interested) and getting kids outside and active in nature to foster in them a beneficial connection to the earth. I have worked with addicts and alcoholics in the wilderness and guided them through the 12 Steps to better their lives. I am invested in created rites of passage programs for young people that encourages personal responsibility and a transition into adulthood.

I have plenty that I am proud to be a part of, and, having been involved with people therapeutically for so long in my line of work I can say with certainty that the best way to influence people and change hearts and minds is not to scream and shout but to respect the fact that other people are human beings who have thoughts and feelings just like me. I have learned that, as soon as I view another person as an object, I lose the potential to develop any kind of meaningful dialogue with them. I believe a big problem in our country is that we tend to put people in boxes and fight against them, rather than invite them over to our side through compassionate interaction. Calling Mitt Romney a "puppet" is divisive and will not win people over. Asking accusatory questions only creates resistance, in my opinion.

If you ask Ron Paul, I'm sure he would say the same. He believes in living as an example and inspiring rather than forcing and coercing others. I really think he is sending our country the message it needs to wake up out of this "me vs. you" trance we've been living in for so long and recognize that we are all individuals, not simply part of this group or that group -- or in this box or that box.

I understand and I didn't mean to offend you in that way.

It's just that people critize the ones who have the guts to confront these people. And they are puppets of the plutocratic elite. They have no conscience - they are in it for one reason and it has nothing to do with the health and welfare of our once great, sovereign nation. There is no winning them over by being cordial and inspirational. You can't change narcissistic people like that. Luke has learned that the only way he's going to expose romney and the many others as he's done in the past is to catch them off guard. We're in this battle together and we have to use what ever means possible to wake up as many people as possible even if it means ruffling a few feathers. Sometimes that's what it takes to shake people out of their trance.

Ron Paul knows these things and I believe in his message of doing right and others will emulate us. That's what we need to strive for among the us but the elite don't see themselves as one of us.
I'm sure Ron Paul would speak his mind if he were under the same light as us BUT he's not. He intelligent enough to know that the media will use it against him which would defeat his purpose. He's playing their game.

I'm grateful that we have a Luke out there fighting for our cause. And I'm grateful for you and the battle you've chosen. As for me, I also have a passion for health. I've been a student of Weston Price and many other naturopaths over 20 years now. I've been active against fed, vaccines, food chain and codex ailamentarious mostly by sharing my knowledge where ever I go.

Friends in liberty! Godspeed......

Thanks for clarifying

I think there is definitely truth to what you say about narcissistic people. I have actually worked with folks who have been diagnosed as such, and I must say they were some of my most difficult clients. It did seem sometimes that the only way to get through to them was by being very direct and assertive -- even enforcing some kind of strict boundaries. Romney may or may not be a narcissist. He actually seems pretty reasonable, and Ron Paul has affirmed that many times. Newt Gingrich and Santorum, though -- those guys are classic narcissists. I think they need their feathers ruffled and exposed.

Also, I was not necessarily saying that Romney or other elites could be won over by the example we set as Ron Paul supporters; what I meant to say was that other common folks who are undecided might be more influenced to come our way through our enthusiasm and inspiration, rather than emotionally-charged contention. There is a small subset of angry, frustrated young people who I think Luke appeals to. He certainly has his place in the movement. But I think ultimately we are going to need many more people willing to put their emotions aside and inspire the message of liberty in the people through well-reasoned debate and discussion, always with a willingness to remain open and humble.

here's a question

why would obama's supporters be trying to support you as his opponent in the general election?


What's your name?
Bill Derberg.


that was awesome!

that was awesome!