Ryan Zinke: Why I’m running to be Montana’s Lt. Governor

by Ryan Zinke

I am often asked “why run for office given the present political environment of distrust, misrepresentation, and personal attacks?”

The simple answer is I care about working families and the legacy we leave our children. I care about having better jobs and better education. I care about using our public lands for the benefit of all and developing our resources without harming our environment.

I also care about the future of our country and believe the failure of partisan politics has put our nation and our state at risk. It’s time “We the People” stand together and reinstitute personal responsibility and protect our constitutional freedoms.

I grew up in Montana and spent 23 years fighting terrorism around the world as a commander in the Navy SEALs. I have seen the devastation that corruption, special interests, and intolerant ideology have on a society. Our future depends on creating better jobs, better education, and restoring accountability and trust in government.

First, how do we create better jobs and move Montana from 47th in per capital income to one of the top 10?

The chairman of Oasis Oil, a 5-year-old multi-billion-dollar company operating in North Dakota, puts it this way: “It’s not just about one specific tax, it’s about the margin.”

To prosper, we need to do more than just eliminate the equipment tax or reduce workers’ compensation rates, we need to think big and form a bipartisan task force with a mission.

Let’s examine every piece of job killing regulation and cut red tape in half within two years. A predictable regulatory business climate that promotes investment in energy, technology, and infrastructure is critical to our economic growth. Only sweeping changes in policy can create the type of economic juggernaut that will promote jobs, protect our legacy and deliver prosperity.

Too tough? No. If Gov. Christie can cut through the bureaucracy in a state like New Jersey, we can do it here.

Second, how do we foster an education system that delivers excellence in a global economy?

The answer is to invigorate innovation and technology in the classroom, provide local school choice, and ensure we value results, speed and flexibility over process and bureaucracy. While Montana’s schools generally outperform the national average in most areas, we face a $3.6 billion pension deficit and rank among the lowest in terms of both teacher salary and choice.

When the president of Montana Rifle Company states that over half of his job applicants do not have a high school diploma, we have a problem.

As the former executive officer of the Navy’s premier training command and the chairman of the Montana Senate Education Committee, I am committed to the challenge of delivering a model education for the jobs of the future.

Finally, how do we restore faith in our government?

We must demand transparency in government spending and activity and we must ensure that our government has the same standard of justice and service for the influential as well as the destitute. Our government must be the advocate for all, not just those with access or privilege.

And, we must root out corruption and special interest at every level. Integrity and example must start at the top. As your lieutenant governor, I pledge to work tirelessly to eliminate corruption and will give no quarter to those who profit from dishonesty.

If you believe our state is heading in the right direction and are satisfied with being near the bottom, then Neil Livingstone and I are not your candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. “Business and politics as usual” and recycled politicians who failed to act when they had the chance will not rekindle our democracy.

Our platform is business and we are both deeply honored to be blue-collar Republicans. We have proven ourselves in service to our country and possess the leadership necessary to create and win a common sense revolution.

Our resumes are on line at Neil2012.com

God bless America and the great state of Montana.

Zinke, a Whitefish Republican, is a retired Navy SEAL, state senator and candidate for lieutenant governor.

5 thoughts on “Ryan Zinke: Why I’m running to be Montana’s Lt. Governor”

  1. Ryan Zinke is a big government globalist that supports closing down the northern border. Before you tell that I am lying, I will say these are Mr. Zinke's sentiments. He expressed them to me standing in Sykes Restaurant during the Ron Paul Iowa Caucus watch. In addition, he supports increased drone patrols over the northern border. Dr. Ed you can throw your hat in the ring for the lesser of two evils; however, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

  2. @1 Hi Mudcat, thanks for your comment.

    Zinke does not support "closing down the northern border." He does support proper and Consitutional protection of all our borders. He wants open borders to allow America to sell our goods and services to other nations. He is very clear about this in his talks.

    I agree with Zinke that the best and most efficient way to monitor traffic across our borders is to use drones. Patrolling our borders is one of the legitimate uses of drones.

    The "lesser of two evils" is not a valid political concept. Given that no candidate, much less any human being, is perfect, you can apply the label "lesser of two evils" to all candidates. The reality is we should choose the "best" overall candidate we have to chose from.

    Given you are making a comparison using "lessor of two evils" who are you going to prop up as the "better of two evils"?

  3. When they decide to turn the drones on you Dr. Ed because you are climate change denier then you will get to see how the drones work first hand.

    I do not believe that the election process is conducted in a fair manner. I do not believe that we continue to have a transparentvoting system. I will be casting my vote as a protest vote.

    I am sorry Dr. Ed but you do not get to make the lesser of two evils concept an invalid political concept. Did I not read an article where you called for all but two of the governor candidates to ext the race. I believe that your list included Mr. Livingstone as an invalid candidate?

    As far as my comments concerning Mr. Zinke he knows what he said and I know what he said. In fct, if my memory serves me correctly, you were not standing there. I do not care what Mr. Zinke says now he knows what he said, or was he just playing to the audience?

    Best of luck to you in your conquests. I am sure when we get a republican governor all will be well in the universe because the republican house and senate really stood up to the governors veto on the banishment of the concealed
    weapons permit after the session ended.

    My hope is not in man, Instead, I place my faith and hope in Jesus Christ because to place my hope in man is nothing short of humanism. It has been this humanist mentality that has this state and our country in the shape that it is in. Let me ask you Dr. Ed, do you believe in six literal days of creation?

  4. Timothy Baldwin


    It appears your intentions and concerns are genuine. However, the reasoning supporting your anti-Livinstone/Zinke (or perhaps others) position is unfounded. Here are my observations:

    1) Re: Drones. Your claim is that Zinke supports drones. So what? The existence of technology and its potential abuse is not legitimate grounds for making a moral judgment upon one who advances its use for legitimate purposes. What about satellites, internet, jets, forms of energy, etc.? These things can be used against the citizens, yet they exist and are readily used in everyday life.

    Are politicians who encourage their use evil? Do you use them, or do you benefit from their use in society and around the world? If you do, does that make you evil?

    Some would say that the use of credit cards, social security numbers, banks, etc. are evil, even relating them to taking the "mark of the beast". Do you use any such things? Does that make you evil? I use such devices, and so does everyone I know, even those who claim their potential for evil. I am evil?

    The existence of government itself is as great of a potential evil as any other thing on earth. Yet, America's founders considered that potential as insufficient grounds for not creating government, even a strong, powerful government. In fact, the US Constitution created one of the most powerful governments–in form and potential–the world had ever seen, as it still is today.

    Just as the potential of abusing government power is not sufficient reason not to create government, so too the potential abuse of technology does not give grounds to demean its use or to morally judge as evil those who advance its use.

    Technology will not be stopped, nor should it. God created the potential of technology and expects we use all our resources to our advantage. Drones have a lot of potential use for good as much as for evil.

    The potential for their abuse is not the issue. If these drones are used against the people, that of course is a different story, and those particular cases can be redressed as necessary.

    But the same argument can be used regarding satellites and a myriad of other technologies that exist and are used right now–used by people who would even attack others for advocating advancing uses of technology.

    How do you think past generations would have seen the potential for evil in the internet? Yet, it is the world's most commonly used technology; and it is used by the government every day to do things you may find objectionable. Do we eliminate the internet? A few billion people would say, no!

    The question becomes, who determines which technology is acceptable or not?

    If the government were to ban advancing technology, "conservatives" would claim this is beyond the government's power and is tyrannical. Yet, when the government uses technology, we charge them with reaching beyond their power for simply using something created by the genius of man.

    What do you propose: make illegal all use of advancing technologies that could potentially be used against the people? You might as well eliminate all technology and put us back in horse and buggy days–days where tyranny existed as much.

    2) Re: Lesser evil. This notion is misapplied, in my opinion, in many ways regarding politics. Of course, there is no real consensus or clarity of what that means. It is used mostly as a way of excusing our own lack of political analysis and study.

    My experience tells me that what it normally means is, if you do not agree with me and my understanding of "what is going on" and "what the constitution means", then you are evil and part of the problem. I find this utterly disappointing.

    On the flip side of this "lesser evil is still evil" coin, some would accuse such people as facilitating much greater evils to be placed upon the people. To these people, such a facilitation is evil and as worthy of condemnation.

    Which philosophy is more correct? the do-not-vote-for-anyone-unless-they-are-purely-pure (whose philosophy does in fact facilitate "greater evils" to obtain positions of power), or the vote-for-a-person-I-find-more-favorable (whose philosophy considers the practicalities of getting people into office and the kind of work, consensus, and money that takes in a diverse and heterogeneous society)?

    We are going to disagree regarding origins, principles, premise, and conclusions. (Hopefully, patriots can formulate such methods of understanding and not place their political understanding on emotions and perceptions, the dislike of advancing society, or the feeling of "losing control".) The difference of opinion or understanding does not make one evil.

    One of the political philosophers which the founding fathers considered more than just about any other philosopher, Samuel Pufendorf, had much to say in this regard. I think his observations are enlightening.

    As a matter of historical fact, the US Constitution reflected great compromises of the day. Consequently, there were some who called the US Constitution and its advocates evil. These naysayers did so because they saw the Constitution as a big ball of potential energy of government abuse: the federal government was given too much power, the States should have been more involved in the federal process, the judiciary should be elected not appointed, the right of secession should have been explicit in the bill of rights, etc. Yet, this is the same Constitution many today claim was God-inspired, perfect, etc. Such naysayers were people like, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Samuel Adams. Who was evil?–those who supported or opposed the Constitution?

    What is the difference between the patriots who opposed the Constitution in 1787 and those patriots today who praise the Constitution as being the most perfect civil document in world history–then, now, and to come. The difference: perspective, priority, understanding, logic, political science, experience, forecasting, etc.

    Does this make those who opposed the Constitution in 1787 evil, or does it make those who support it evil? Neither. Both had their social and political reasons. Both are to be respected. Indeed, both were respected in 1787.

    I believe we should give each other respect even if we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Name calling does nothing to enhance the discussion or enlighten the mind. In fact, in mostly confuses the discussion and dulls the mind.

    3) re: hope in Jesus Christ. What does that mean? I would love to hear the detailed analysis of this claim. I'll add my own preemptive comments in response.

    Jesus came to seek that which was lost, heal that which was sick, and free that which was enslaved. In what regard?–individually, socially, or politically? or all? If all, is each obtained by the same method? The answer is, each are not obtained by the same method. Common sense reveals that, but Scriptures and natural law do as well.

    How can "setting the captive free" take place politically?

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you–the Golden Rule. Simple, right? Wrong. The Bible contains many thousands of words and as many concepts which put meat on the flesh of that basic Golden-Rule skeleton. Even then, the Bible was written in such as way that God left to man the duty of deriving and applying societal and political concepts to different cases. If you think that all concepts are fixed in time, place, and circumstances as revealed in, say, Israel, you are wrong. If they are so fixed, then why do we not propose to recreate Israel's laws?

    Even Jesus did not encourage or reflect such a stand-still approach to law (even the law revealed by God to Israel–the perfect law of God) as Jesus directly and expressly violated the Sabbath law (a holy law) to feed himself and his disciples during their day's ventures, showing how natural and superior laws may be applied to change civil laws where change or different interpretation is necessary. Joseph did the same thing when he ignored Israel's law to kill the adulterer (Mary) and decided to put her away privately because "he was a just man".

    This same idea is seen in the Old Testament where there were times when Moses and the judges were not able to discern truth or correct principles and conclusions regarding God's laws in particular cases. In which case, they were instructed to go to the prophets and priests (those who had direct communication with God) to discern God's will. Since we do not operate by direct communication with God, God requires us to use reason and understanding to apply natural law into society and politics. This is no easy task and requires a lifetime of dedicated study.

    Political hope comes not from a personal faith in Jesus Christ, but in hope in what God created for the material world. On that score, my hope is in understanding social and political truth as applied to my circumstances–these are the things God created and set in motion. This has nothing to do with whether one believes in a literal 6 day creation, and it does not require one to believe in Jesus Christ.

    I thank God for natural law regarding society, politics, etc. for they contain the formula of study, and are available for all to study, regardless of personal faith. As well, I thank God for people who study those laws and apply them in the real world–regardless of his personal hope or faith in Christ.

  5. The drone itself is not evil; however, advocating that drones be used against Americans is evil. The same argument has been used against guns. Intent determines evil; therefore, your argument is invalid. If the drone is being used to spy on my property without the issuance of a search warrant, then yes it is evil.

    Concerning the "mark of the beast" that I utter nonsense. If you cared to study the scriptures you would understand that Nero Caesar was "The Beast." As John wrote 666 was the number of a man, not a credit card number or social security number.

    I will agree with your assertion concerning government; however, God creates all government and nothing happens outside of God's plan. Proverbs 21:1 says "The kings heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Your view point has God subservient to your will, (total Arminian heresey). Of course, you can read Romans 9 and then tell me what Paul was speaking about. Romans 9:15 Paul writes of God having mercy on whom he wishes and compassion on whom I will have compassion. Paul then follows it with 9:16 dealing with mans will. Paul writes, "it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

    I can choose to use the internet; however, I can not choose to have the government violate my person with a drone.

    You can choose to invalidate my comment on the lesser of two evils and continue to vote party line. As I told Dr. Ed your are not the arbitor as to what is valid and invalid. If I am not happy with the mainstream choice, I cast a protest vote. I will not be pidgeon holed like 95% of negros in the Democrat party. Republicans know that Christian Conservatives will vote Republican; therefore, what do they do besides make promises. Have they over turned abortion? Have conservatives ever conserved anything?

    My comment about my faith and trust in Jesus Christ revolves around my trust in a risen savior not in a corruptible man. The Bible teaches that our life on earth is but a vapor, eternity is forever. I choose Jesus over your corrupt political system. That may sound odd to you but the main jist of your comments revolve around man.

    As for the Law, it was meant to comdemn. Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the Law, but to full fill it. I believe he full filled it just as he said. Was Jesus concerned with changing the Roman government during his ministry? No. Instead, he used the Romans to judge the nation of Israel in 70 A.D.

    I asked the question concerning the six literal days of creation to see if Dr. Ed held to Biblical truths. The assault on the Bible began with geo-centric versus helio-centric. The church let the pro helio-centrics win out because they said science supported this. Then the humanist questioned six literal days of creation and the church said nothing. What will the humanist question next the virgin birth or the resurrection. Where will you stand? No matter what form of government we live under it is not eternity.

    I do not see any room for the sovereignty of God in your final statement. Your worship is just like that of the church in Ladocia. Of course, I am basing my comments on what you have written.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.