Stephen Emery is married and has five minor children. He was born in Illinois and grew up on grain and livestock farms starting in Illinois and then in Minnesota. He graduated from Motley High School. Stephen has an Associate of Applied Science degree in Animal Science from the University of Minnesota-Crookston and a Bachelor of Science degree from North Dakota State University, majoring in Agriculture Education with minors in Agronomy and Animal Science. He has a Juris Doctor degree from the University of North Dakota and is licensed to practice law in Minnesota.

Stephen has professional work experience as a County Agent (an agriculture consultant and youth worker), a Sales Representative selling herbicides for American Cyanamid, and a Medical Representative promoting vaccines, antibiotics, and antihypertensive drugs for Lederle Laboratories. For the last 20 years, Stephen has worked in the legal field. The last 18 years has been invested in doing legal analysis and writing.

Private Corporations

Just eight men own as much wealth as 3.6 billion people–about half of the world population. In the United States, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than half of everyone else. Amassing this kind of wealth, and therefore power, in a few hands could not occur apart from the private corporation. This seems inequitable to many people, but it is not new. It would have seemed inequitable to the Founders of this nation too. They recognized that the corporation essentially is a tool to enslave the masses. They fought the Revolutionary/American War, in part, to free themselves from the private corporation—the East India Tea Company. The company rose to account for half of the world’s trade. The company subjugated the colonists economically and the Colonists’ response to it was the Boston Tea Party and then the War.

After the War, the Founders of this nation addressed this issue, and others, through the Title of Nobility Clauses (anti-nobility clauses) in the Constitution to prevent economic slavery from reoccurring through the private corporation. The nobility of the British empire also were aware of the excesses of the private corporation and big government. Lord Acton captured the sentiment of the Founders in his statement that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. History supports his claim.

Government needs to be decentralized and economic/business activity needs to be decentralized too. The private corporation, which is a fictional creation of the government, limits liability, provides for a perpetual existence, and provides a mechanism that allows wealth, and therefore power, to concentrate in a few hands, unnaturally. Each of those characteristics works counter to individual liberty and the proper purposes of government. The proper purpose of government is to hold people accountable for their actions, not to allow people to escape responsibility for their misconduct through use of the corporate form. The private corporation is just another way for the government to redistribute wealth and power to the elite. Redistribution of wealth to the elite, or even the poor, is not a proper function of government.

The proper economic system is private enterprise, i.e., through individual merit, not corporate enterprise, capitalism, socialism, or communism. Venezuela, where people are starving to death, is a typical example of the consequences of socialism and communism. History indicates that when monopolies are broken up, economic activity flourishes. The break-up of Standard Oil, AT&T and the Bell Telephone Company are useful examples of that effect. The loss of the Netscape browser and the Tucker automobile company because the anti-trust laws were not enforced as written are typical examples of mega private corporations suppressing productive economic activity and innovation. Banning the private corporation would be a tremendous engine for economic growth and stability and personal responsibility, achievement, and innovation. Wealth obtained through the use of force, including the government, is counterproductive and oppressive to the masses.

President Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. It couldn’t exist but for the private corporation. It demands to be fed massive amounts of money from the federal treasury and it advocates for war. It is a threat to the well-being of this nation’s citizens and people throughout the world. I have observed that catastrophic environmental damage occurs through the private corporation where it otherwise would not have. If the “bottom line” favors polluting, corporations pollute due to the limitation-of-liability shield. Much legislation, including that which allows for H1-b visas and O-1 visas, is passed to promote the interests of the corporation. Additionally, currently there is no such thing as a “free press” as referenced in the Constitution—at least not as the Founders understood that term. Essentially, only the decision-makers in the private media corporations currently have a “free press.”

Many years ago, Congress provided at least a partial remedy by passing the Sherman Antitrust Act to address the excesses of the “robber barons” of the mid to late 1800s, but the big government courts refuse to enforce it as written. The courts enforce other Acts of Congress as written; in fact, judges openly state that they must enforce statutes as written unless it would be illogical to do so. Judges do not claim that enforcing the Sherman Act as written would be illogical. Judges say only that they don’t want the Act to have the expansive affect that it would have if they did so. Congress has the prerogative to determine the affect of legislation, not judges. History has repeated. The Judiciary and the Executive must be compelled to enforce the Sherman Act as written to address the modern day “robber barons.”

Enforcement of the anti-nobility clauses would be an effective remedy to address the economic slavery of today through the corporation and government. I would advocate and vote for a governmental structure that favors individuals having their own businesses and to diminish the mega multi-national corporation, which ships American jobs overseas, imports foreign workers under H-1b and O-1 visas, and is a hindrance to economic growth, by requiring the courts to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act. What has Amy Klobuchar done to address the excesses of the corporation? NOTHING. She is part of the problem.

The Environment

If elected, I will advocate and vote in such a way as to promote the decree of the Creator for mankind to take dominion over the earth and subdue it and to be fruitful and multiply. Amy Klobuchar does not, and she is part of the problem. This mandate directs the full and responsible utilization of the earth’s natural resources, which includes elevating the needs of people over animals and plants.

For example, the heavy-handed federal government has turned the San Joaquin Valley, which used to be a fertile, productive area for growing food, into a wasteland by diverting water that would have been used for people and agriculture to try to remove some sediment from a river to supposedly benefit an imported salmon species. The federal government is taking control of agricultural lands throughout the nation on the basis that they are associated with navigable waterways which has led to a $2.8 million dollar fine being imposed on a farmer for plowing his field. Locally, this type of government regulation has prevented the development of a water source by the water board for rural families because a particular plant might be adversely affected even though there is no proof whatsoever of any harm to the plant species or the environment. In fact, all the proof indicates otherwise. The federal constitution does not provide any basis whatsoever for this kind of regulation and it is contrary to the proper purposes of government.

I will advocate and vote for a “people first” environmental policy, including for all undeveloped land in control of the federal government to be immediately transferred first to the citizens of this country and what is left over to the States. Amy Klobuchar is in favor of ever-increasing regulation.


Who wants a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. to dictate to them how they should conduct their affairs? The federal government is taking control of agricultural lands throughout the nation on the basis that they are associated with navigable waterways which has led to a $2.8 million dollar fine being imposed on a farmer for plowing his field. A free people should be able to make decisions as to how to responsibly conduct his/her operations, and their decision-making should be based on private enterprise, rather than being dictated by the government.

The family farming operation, rather than corporate farming, is the best form of agriculture because family farmers care for the land, water, and livestock. The highest priority of corporations that are not owned by family farmers is profit, which overrides all other concerns.

According to her own website (as of 6/19/17), Amy Klobuchar thinks that she did something wonderful by persuading the federal government to restore pizza to the lunch menu at public schools! Why should the federal government decide what our kids have for lunch?

Amy Klobuchar, who supports a big, all-encompassing government, has presided over the continuing decay of rural communities through the promotion of mega-corporation-friendly farm bills. If elected, I will advocate and vote in a way so as to diminish mega, non-family, low-employment corporations which, if successful, will tend to rejuvenate rural communities through more farms and increased populations, and therefore goods and services, in rural communities.

Second Amendment

I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, including the right to personally bear arms. Amy Klobuchar is not. She is in favor of ever increasing gun control.

As a gun owner, I will defend the right to personally keep and bear arms. I support the right of all law-abiding citizens to use Constitutional carry to protect themselves and their loved ones. I also support “stand your ground” self-defense. The personal right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to who we are in this country.


When Amy Klobuchar took office the federal debt was about 9 trillion dollars. Now it is over 20 trillion dollars. During her watch of just 12 years, she has more than doubled the amount of debt that had accumulated over the past 200 years, much of it spent on Obamacare and other entitlement programs she has supported which consume about 60% of the budget. Then there is “intragovernmental” debt and “implicit debt” that runs the “tab” to over 120 trillion dollars. Surprisingly, that is not all. Federal government “mandates,” which also are almost always entitlements, essentially control 60% of State government’s budgets too! This is not the model created by the Founders. The federal government was established as an instrumentality of the States, not the way it is now where the federal government dictates to the States. That must change.

The “Santa Claus” mentality of promising more and more government payments apart from services rendered helps politicians win elections, but eventually this house of cards is going to collapse. Like all Ponzi schemes, it is only a matter of time until it has run its course and then the cruelly oppressive nature of this amount of debt will have to be borne. The interest on debt makes this situation even worse. Compounding interest is the most powerful invention in human history and, in this case, it works against you.

Our ancestors agreed with this. One of them said, “a democracy can exist only until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”

You are responsible for paying this debt (Amy Klobuchar signed for you) and it will come due. Realistically, each individual owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to the federal government’s creditors. That is on top of your other expenses such as food, clothing, and housing, and the creditor will require payment of the federal debt first–leaving you with nothing. Venezuela, where people are starving, is an excellent example of this. In this light, the individualized benefits from the federal treasury apart from services rendered are not as “free” as they seem. The debt will be paid, with interest on interest on interest, and it will come from your assets.

Incurring debt is irresponsible to future generations. We should not run up a massive “tab” that our children will have to pay in the future. We must not place our children in financial slavery to subsidize the cost of tyrants and despots obtaining elective office.

The Constitution does not provide a basis for much of what the federal government does. Much of what the government does now occurs through the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.

The Commerce Clause was intended by the Founders only to prevent trade wars among the states, and yet it has been expanded without amending the Constitution to regulate nearly anything that has any sort of a financial basis and beyond.

The General Welfare Clause was intended to be a limitation and a check on the power of the federal government, and it has been turned into a way for elected federal officials and bureaucrats to write checks to whatever constituency they want to support their ever increasing power (i.e., entitlements). The Constitution must be enforced as intended.

I believe Social Security benefits for the aged are in the nature of an annuity, and therefore are not an entitlement in this context. I would advocate and vote in such a way to restore those contributions to a “lock box” status in the federal treasury. Currently, Social Security contributions do not have any special protection at all. Benefits to military personnel are for services rendered.

Redistribution of wealth is not a legitimate use of governmental power. The proper model to address the temporal needs of people in the community is first personal responsibility, then family responsibility, and finally charity. Regardless, the resources come from the people and States can determine whether to extract them and how to use them—not the federal government. So many resources are lost on bureaucracy and so much tyranny results from it. If the people genuinely support individualized benefits apart from services rendered, they can provide them to those in need locally. A federal bureaucracy is ineffective and inefficient for that purpose.

Federal Courts

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Mr. Hammond in 1821: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in … the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body … working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states.” It seems to me that he was prophetic!

I would advocate and vote to repudiate Marbury v. Madison, a decision issued many years ago by the Supreme Court that was used to establish federal courts as the ultimate decision-maker in government. To take this ultimate power is tyrannical and despotic.

In issuing this decision, the Supreme Court did not have the support of the Constitution, the Executive, or the Congress to do so. The very structure of the Constitution establishes Congress as the final decision-maker, and the courts last in power. It is only logical for Congress to be the final decision-maker because they are closest to the people since they are elected and judges are appointed. For Congress to make a decision, it takes 269 votes in favor of it. With the Supreme Court, it only takes five votes, and many times a binding decision circumventing the will of Congress and the President rests on the vote of one Justice. At the time the Constitution was formed, for the courts to declare something “unconstitutional” would have been completely foreign to the Founders.

The lower federal courts owe their very existence to Congress. It doesn’t make any sense to consider them superior to Congress and determine that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional. Congress can, and maybe should, repeal the Judiciary Act of 1789 and terminate the existence of the lower federal courts unless they can be put into their proper role under the Constitution.

In shaping the Constitution, the Founders were extremely concerned about preventing tyranny and despotism. Thomas Jefferson, who was President when the Supreme Court issued the Marbury decision, had the view that it was illegitimate, as did Andrew Jackson. Early observers of the American way of life and government warned that the structure of the courts was the weak link of our system of government and would lead to civil war. History has proven them correct at least once, i.e., Dred Scott v. Sanford. This tyranny must be addressed. If necessary, I would advocate and vote for the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to remove all lower federal courts to address this situation.

Governmental power must be returned to the people. One way is to limit the federal government as understood by the Founders. This would include limiting the power of the courts to applying the law only as to the case before any particular court and to determining the constitutionality of only its own acts. No more broad and sweeping decrees at to the constitutionality of any act of Congress or the President. Another way is to empower the people by requiring the courts to have the jury determine the facts and the law before coercive power of government can be applied. I will advocate and vote along these lines. Amy Klobuchar supports the current tyranny, and actually flatters herself as a potential Supreme Court Justice who will undoubtedly continue the abuse.


I would advocate and vote to defund the promotion of evolution. It is a destructive philosophy and there isn’t even one proof of it using the scientific method of observability, testability, and repeatability. I have asked the National Geographic, a leading proponent of evolution, to do so, numerous times and they cannot. In fact, there isn’t any known method for producing life from non-life, but there is evidence that evolution is impossible. The hypothetical simple organism that supposedly arose from primordial goo is a complete impossibility. All life is dependent on the DNA double helix, but it is so irreducibly complex that it could not have sprang from nothing apart from the Creator. Diversity in life forms occurs through how genes are expressed–not modification. All genetic modifications are deleterious–without exception. The same conclusion that evolution is impossible is required in light of the complexity of chemical reactions that are required to support life.

No one should be surprised that children act like animals when they are taught that they are animals. One component of the solution to resolving school shootings is to remove the teaching of evolution from the educational system. Also, we should learn from the past and put up a sign saying, “You shall not murder” and teach the children the eternal consequences for doing so.

Education is a local matter. Rather than taking money from the people and circulating it through the federal bureaucracy, decide locally how you want to use it. I would advocate and vote to recognize homeschooling as a fundamental right of parents. Amy Klobuchar supports the promotion of evolution and big government control of education.

Other Social Issues

If elected, I will vote and advocate in such a way so as to keep biological males out of female showers and bathrooms in schools and public places. Amy Klobuchar hasn’t done anything to prohibit this sort of conduct!

I will advocate and vote in such a way so that if a Christian doesn’t want to bake a cake, make a flower arrangement, or take a picture because of his or her religious convictions, he or she should not be penalized for not doing so, and if a Christian church does not want its facility used for a particular purpose for a religious reason, it should not be penalized for doing so.

I would seek to repeal the Immigration Act of 1990. We did not have terrorism before then and it also provided for the exportation of our jobs and for foreigners to come in to take our jobs. I will oppose immigration that allows any people into the country, or to remain in the county, who have an allegiance to documents that encourage murder, rape, pedophilia, torture, wife beating, female genital mutilation, lying, or stealing, who have a history of this sort of behavior, or are currently engaging in this type of behavior. Amy Klobuchar hasn’t done anything to protect us from them even though we’ve had a terrorist attack in St. Cloud and many of them have been arrested and jailed for plotting terrorism. No one should be allowed to emigrate into this country unless they are fluent in English and have marketable skills.

I will oppose abortion. Amy Klobuchar supports abortion on demand. Ask Ms. Klobuchar when her daughter became a human being. A similar question was posed to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, as it related to her children. Her response was “I am pro-choice.” I consider that answer to be “non-responsive” at best. The fact of the matter is answering that question honestly is to admit that life begins at conception. Ms Wasserman-Schultz knew that and that’s why she answered the way she did. If you ask that question of Amy Klobuchar, you will not receive an answer that is qualitatively different from Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s answer.

United Nations

I would advocate and vote to defund and disband the United Nations. This group of people is not elected by anybody, let alone people of the United States, is thoroughly corrupt, exerts increasing control over the United States, diminishes United States sovereignty through treaties, and is a tool to further Muslim interests throughout the world.​

According to the Constitution, treaties have an elevated status, but treaties as understood by the founders were never intended to manage the internal affairs of the United States. For example, the International Rights of the Child Convention has the effect of dramatically diminishing parental rights. I would oppose this Convention. Amy Klobuchar supports it.

Other Issues

Currently, the government does not take a proactive position against cyber attacks. That needs to change. The government needs to aggressively punish hackers and other malicious actors–even if they are state actors–for attacks against government or persons in the United States.

Amy Klobuchar is a career politician. That is not what the Founders intended. They intended a continual rotation of persons in government. The Constitution’s anti-Nobility Clauses demand it. A continual rotation of persons ensures that the interests of the people are represented. Career politicians like Amy Klobuchar produce factions, an entrenched bureaucracy, and an all-encompassing government–which is exactly what we have now. Also, if you dislike excessive electioneering, you must not vote for Amy Klobuchar. She has over $10 million in campaign funds to use to bludgeon you with political advertising and, in effect, buy votes. Most likely these funds were obtained from special interests that work against your interests.

Get Involved



Social Media

Contact Us

Back to Top