Stephen Emery is married and has five minor children. He grew up on grain and livestock farms. He has an Associate of Applied Science degree in Animal Science, a Bachelor of Science degree, majoring in Agriculture Education with minors in Agronomy and Animal Science. He has a Juris Doctor degree and is licensed to practice law.

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.


7th Congressional District

What has Collin Peterson done from a practical standpoint to prevent this “lock down” or stop it from continuing even though there is no science whatsoever behind it? It is based on a untested high school science experiment and has cost far more in lives lost and trillions of dollars of economic activity. The only thing he can think of is more unconstitutional government handouts that nobody prefers and that massively increase the federal deficit and will eventually destroy the nation! He is using your tax dollars to buy re-election! You need to tell him to keep his hands out of your pockets!

What the people want is to get the government out of our business. Even though he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and is Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, he hasn’t done anything to proactively address the violation of our Constitutional Due Process rights to our property and to earn a living, or enforce any of our other Constitutional rights such as association or religion. He could have and should have. If he would have, we wouldn’t need government intervention to resolve a problem that the government created! At most, he has a vague response to it: he said, ” . . . this is not going to happen again on my watch. When we get all of this settled, we are going to have a way to respond to emergencies that we can implement whenever we have an emergency situation.” Let’s not give him another “watch.” He had a 30-year “watch.” We have had massive property loss and loss of our civil liberties because he did not address the issues that led to this situation. It is time for effective representation in Washington D.C. from Minnesota’s Seventh Congressional District!

He is very generous with other people’s money. The national debt when Collin Peterson took office was $4 trillion, now its $25 trillion. He says he’s fiscally conservative, but he supports the programs that led to this massive debt.

Before Collin Peterson was elected, he was for term limits, now he’s on his 15th term. That comfortably falls into the definition of hypocrisy. A road sign in the District says “Politicians are like diapers, they have to be changed regularly, and for the same reasons.” I couldn’t agree more. Thirty years is way too long for one person to remain in elective office. We are missing out on the fresh ideas and motivation from a lot of quality people in the 7th Congressional District because one person has occupied this office for so long. Mr. Peterson rarely shows any initiative. He doesn’t resolve anything–he just perpetuates existing problems. We are long overdue for a change.

Collin Peterson says he supports the Second Amendment, but what has he done in support of it other than strum his guitar? When his colleagues protested against guns in the well of the House of Representatives, he was completely silent.

What has he done to keep biological males out of female showers and bathrooms? Nothing. Instead, he has voted in support of sodomy numerous times or did not vote against it when he could have.

What has he done to keep these multi-national corporations from shipping our jobs overseas?

He has presided over the rise of the mega corporate farm and multi-national agriculture corporation and demise of our rural communities and family farms.

He voted to allow illegal immigrants to vote in our elections!

He says he’s the most bi-partisan member of Congress, but he votes with Nancy Pelsosi almost all of the time and gives his money to extremely liberal causes that oppose the issues he says he supports.

Nancy Pelosi effectively is the Representative for the Minnesota Seventh Congressional District. The first thing Collin Peterson does after he is elected is to vote for Nancy Pelosi. He helps put her in charge of the machinery of Congress. He knows that much of what occurs there is procedural and through committees, so the leader wields incredible power. She has a say as to who serves on which committee, and how, and if, bills move through the House. Furthermore, he knows that Congress works essentially through a two party system, and they tend to vote in groups, so what the leader pushes to a large measure determines what the result will be.

So, it doesn’t matter how he votes on any particular bill, because he votes “yes” on Nancy Pelosi’s initiatives when he voted for her to lead the Democrats in Congress, and that is the vote that matters. Has his vote against a Pelosi initiative ever meant the difference of whether it passes? I don’t think so, and so it is always a safe, meaningless vote—except for his re-electability.

So, regardless of how Collin Peterson otherwise may vote, a vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and gun control;

Obamacare and poorer medical care;

sodomy and biological males in women’s showers and bathrooms;

Islam and Muslims, and illegal aliens sweeping across the nation and voting in our elections! The rise of the Islamist has occurred on his watch and he hasn’t done anything to address it!;

more and more in-your-face control by the United Nations over our lives;

extreme environmentalism;

Planned Parenthood and the butchering of babies and the sale of baby parts;

mega corporate farming and disenfranchising our children from remaining on the land and continuing farming which is the most common form of free enterprise;

more and more welfare that the nation can’t support and that isn’t good for the welfare recipient or the taxpayer, and a complete collapse of our economy due to run-away debt;

and this massive tax and spend program that is wrapped around this lie called man-made global warming.

We need different, and far better, representation in Washington, D.C.

The people who established this nation intended for a continual rotation of citizens for elective positions, not career politicians like Collin Peterson. Let’s value private enterprise and personal responsibility. Let’s spend within our means and not create more debt for our children and grandchildren.

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. The wealth of the top 1 percent surpasses $100 trillion which is more than the global GDP and all central bank balance sheets. Amassing this kind of wealth, and therefore power, in a few hands could not occur apart from the private corporation.

This kind of accumulation of wealth and power 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 is a fictional creation (something that is false, but that is held to be true) of the government to limit liability, provide for a perpetual existence, and provide 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 essentially is mind control on steroids for redistribution of wealth and power to the elite through the misuse of governmental power. Redistribution of wealth to the elitists, 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, 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 oppressive nature 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 that give our jobs to foreigners, is passed to promote the interests of the corporation.

President Eisenhower also warned us of the oppressive nature of the “scientific-technological elite.” We are nearly in “full flower” now. They have combined with the media to push a false narrative to support these “shelter in place” orders that have destroyed our civil rights, including our First Amendment right to associate and our rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to earn a living. Currently there is no such thing as a “free press” as referenced in the Constitution—at least not as the Founders understood that term. Just six companies control more than 90 percent of the news media. This is a relatively recent phenomenon. The “press” used to be extremely decentralized, and that is the way it should be. Essentially, only the unelected decision-makers in the private media corporations currently have a “free press.” Even though they, along with the legal profession, are not elected, they effectively are arms of the government and have as much, or more, influence as any elected official. 

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 federal courts, which are in favor of big government and big corporations to expand their power, 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 the courts to be directed to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act as written 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, and for an economic structure that favors individuals and families having their own businesses.

Second Amendment

I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, including the right to personally bear arms. As a gun owner, I 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 the “stand your ground” self-defense. The personal right to keep and bear arms (PDF ) is fundamental to who we are in this country. The riots in Minneapolis demonstrate the need for citizens to have weapons to defend themselves and their property.

Every elected official has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies–foreign and domestic. Having taken that oath, they have the obligation to support and defend the Second Amendment–not eliminate it or diminish it. The solution to gun violence is to have an efficient death penalty and an armed citizenry–not gun control.

For example, a study identified the rate of homicides and suicides from firearms during the ten years preceding a background check law and the ten years following. The comprehensive background check for firearm purchasers has had practically zero effect on California gun violence. See Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia, et al.,California’s Comprehensive Background Check and Misdemeanor Violence Prohibition Policies and Firearm Mortality, 30 Annals of Epidemiology 50 (2019). The authors of the study confirmed that the findings are consistent with experiences in Indiana and Tennessee where ending background checks in 1998 did not change the rates of firearm homicide or suicide.

Get Involved

Newsletter

Contact Us

320.226.8422

320.226.8422

Back to Top