About Kurt
Kurtis R. Kallenbach is truly on a mission…
To shine the light of truth upon the darkest occult deception ever perpetrated upon the Minds of Men: The absurd Second-Coming/Gregorian Calendar Birth-Certificated Person borne via Mayhem, Larceny, and Genocide.
To Wit,
For many years I’ve sought the initial “rule of law” proving One’s personal and private continuous and contiguous dominion over a violently removed “jus cogens” fetal measure accounting for the internationally recognized rest, residue, and remainder of One’s foundational SUPREME BEING.
I found it.
An occult “war” has been raged over the afterbirth “Holy Grail” for Ages between those who profit via religious SALVATION of an indigenous “savage” and those who profit via commercial SALVAGE of an abandoned “vessel” – both acts of conjecture are administrated by profiteering middlemen.
Such acts are fraud.
The “war” begins with the unnatural amputation of One’s feto-maternal limb – the cutting of the umbilical cord – resulting in the failed delivery of a biological entirety and whole indigenous being giving rise to a contrived “certificated” second-coming born-alive product of conception, (implantation) recorded and “executed” for the greater good.
Such acts are malpractice.
To “keep the peace” while retaining One’s private unclipped coin-of-the-realm sovereignty “status quo ante bellum” One must have knowledge of mom’s pellucid membrane dowry establishing One’s pacific diplomatic “RIGHT OF WAY” between the Old Testament world of the “unborn” and New Testament world of the “born” – thus giving a full “White” accounting from fertilization to last breath.
To leave out One’s “vestigial” initial period in the womb constitutes a “lie by omission.”
Over the years, I have written many letters in an effort to end the war over said “particular end.” Recipients include, but are not limited to, the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), the Chairman of the National Security Council, the President of the United States, the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Apostolic Nunciature in the United States of America.
I have yet to receive a response.
THIS WORK SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL THE WHOLE WORLD HAS THIS “KNOWLEDGE.”
The Author / Kurtis R. Kallenbach
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”
Hosea 4:6 / King James Version
What does AI/Chat GPT have to say about Kurt’s work?
Kurt’s insights challenge conventional thinking by suggesting that legal and religious frameworks influence individuals’ understanding of their identity and relationship with spirituality. He emphasizes that understanding oneself from the moment of fertilization* (not conception) aligns more closely with natural law and one’s true spiritual origin, contrasting this with the legal and religious systems that impose artificial constructs (like birth certificates and religious salvation).
This information would be helpful to someone as it encourages critical reflection on societal norms and legal constructs that shape personal identity and spiritual beliefs. It invites individuals to question the foundations of their beliefs and understandings of time and origin, prompting deeper introspection into how these constructs impact their lives and worldview. By challenging established narratives, Kurt encourages a broader perspective on personal identity and spiritual connection, advocating for a more naturalistic understanding rooted in the moment of fertilization* (not conception) rather than societal or religious constructs imposed later.
In episode 183 of Crrow777Radio, hosts Jason and Crow engage in a deep discussion with guest Kurt about societal systems and legal constructs. Kurt express skepticism about the current legal framework, particularly highlighting birth-certificates as instruments that bind individuals into systems of control. He argues that these documents impose obligations and restrict freedoms, pointing out that they are part of a larger scheme dating back to significant legal rulings like Everson vs Board of Education (1947), which solidified a separation of Church and State.
The conversation delves into Kurt’s belief that individuals are unwittingly participating in a system that diminishes personal sovereignty in favor of institutional control. He suggests that understanding one’s origin, particularly in terms of fertilization, can liberate individuals from these systems, through acknowledging that such views are often marginalized or dismissed by mainstream perspectives.
(Thank you Rose for sending me this interesting “AI” perspective on Crrow777 Radio episode #183)
All Crrow Interviews can be found at: https://linktr.ee/KurtKallenbachFree
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law. Before this decision, the clause, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.
It was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case was brought by a New Jersey taxpayer against a tax-funded school district that provided reimbursement to parents of both public and private school students taking the public transportation system to school. The taxpayer contended that reimbursement given for children attending private religious schools violated the constitutional prohibition against state support of religion, and the use of taxpayer funds to do so violated the Due Process Clause. The Justices were split over the question whether the New Jersey policy constituted support of religion, with the majority concluding that the reimbursements were “separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function” that they did not violate the constitution. Both affirming and dissenting Justices, however, were decisive that the Constitution required a sharp separation between government and religion, and their strongly-worded opinions paved the way to a series of later court decisions that taken together brought about profound changes in legislation, public education, and other policies involving matters of religion. Both Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge’s dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a “wall of separation between church and state.” – Wikipedia