Sunday, November 3, 2019

Jed Runs for Office

Jed Duggar on a trip to Colorado with friends

Hot off the press! Jedidiah Duggar just announced his political candidacy. He is running for Arkansas State Representative District 89 in the November 3rd, 2020, election. As a small business owner of Champion Motorcars, Jed is passionate about fighting for the rights of Arkansans. To read more about Jed's views on current issues, you can visit his website.


If you enjoy this blog, be sure to visit Ellie's other blogs (NashvilleWife.com and BatesFamilyBlog.com).

Photo courtesy duggarfamily.com, jedduggar.com

153 comments:

  1. Wow! Best wishes Jeb for a successful career. Wish you were running in NJ!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He'd be eaten alive in NJ.

      Delete
    2. Anon 4:31. That's for sure. lol

      Delete
    3. Are you serious? Chris Christie would steal his lunch and eat it in front of him. lol

      Delete
    4. @ 4:01

      NJ resident here... I love it! Christie was such as embarrassment to our state. Additionally, I am a teacher and what he did to us was not cool in the least.

      Delete
  2. Thats cool. Nice to know what the young bachelor Duggars are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don’t think Jed is quite qualified to hold this position. He’s too young, he doesn’t have a higher education, and he barely has any experience. He might be a small business owner but we all know Jim Bob is the actual force behind all of the Duggar businesses. I’ve also been reading on the woman he’s running against, Megan Godfrey, and I think she has way better qualifications.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder what sort of "business" he owns. He lives at home and supposedly "works for the family business". He's never even maintained his own home so what could he possibly know about funding the government of an entire state?

      Delete
    2. This is one way to get experience !

      Delete
    3. Champion Motorcars is an LLC, registered with the Arkansas Secretary of State. The website lists Jed as the Manager and James R. Duggar (Jim Bob) as the Incorporator/Organizer.
      JAMES R DUGGAR , Incorporator/Organizer

      Delete
    4. Jim Bob and Michelle own the property Champion Motorcars is on as well, under Duggar Properties (according to the Arkansas Secretary of State. Jim Bob is both the Manager and Organizer/Incorporator for Duggar Properties; Michelle is the other Manager listed for Duggar Properties.

      Delete
    5. It's all so purposely structured...

      Delete
  4. Not voting for me

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jed's website includes the basic ultra-conservative talking points on abortion , gun rights, cutting taxes, family values, etc. Not one word about the fact that the Arkansas poverty level ranks as one of the highest in the country and their illiteracy rate is near the top, as well. Somehow I don't think a 20 year old who has no experience with even living on his own is in a position to be making public policy on anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't understand the conservative insistence on "cutting taxes". How are we supposed to PAY for government services without taxes? We need to invest in our people, provide services, pay teachers a living wage, maintain our infrastructure, police and fire protection, social programs for the poor, elderly and disabled, enforce health standards, etc. etc. That takes MONEY as these things don't happen without it.

      Delete
    2. Here's hoping the district voting constituency makes the right choice.

      Delete
    3. @ Nov 4, 12:02PM: We conservatives know that the original purviews of state and federal government are the following: Providing for the Common Defense, and protecting the freedoms of the people. That's it, full stop, nothing more.

      Local government is meant to provide the same on a level that can better manage what the population of a certain area needs.

      I can't speak for Jed, but I would imagine like most conservatives, he will be fighting to reduce the bloat of government, reduce the tax burden in the process and allow citizens to take care of the public.

      I can't think of a single instance where the government has done something better than the citizenry outside of its original purview. Families and the Church once cared for the elderly, the sick, and the poor. Parents taught their own children or had someone in their community teach their children. I can absolutely see where some of the other branch offices of the government are necessary, such as the FDA, but to nowhere near the power they currently have.

      Overall, by reducing taxes, not only can we do more to help others by choosing where when and whom would be the most in need, we at the same time limit the overreach our government is capable of. I firmly believe in the original codes set for government confiscation of personal property, that can be land, labor, money, etc. Which is that they must return equal or greater value of what was taken. Therefore, if I don't use the public school system for example, I shouldn't be paying for it. Remember our founders Rioted over Pine trees, fire arms, and Taxes on Tea.. What would they think about our tax codes today?

      I understand that a great deal of folks these days are not a fan of our founding principals of free enterprise, liberty, and personal responsibility, but that is what I pray this nation returns to.

      Delete
    4. I think by cutting taxes, the idea is more like we don't raise taxes. That usually equates to cutting government waste (extraneous spending). For instance, the state funded college in my state will wildly spend any surplus budgeted funds toward the end of their fiscal year. The excuse is that if they don't use all of the money, their budget will be cut/will not be increased the next year. It also typically involves tying government support programs like welfare to mandatory work requirements,if recipients want to retain their benefits.

      Delete
    5. @12:02 You're so right. If the average Arkansas citizen has a high tax burden, then it's because there's not enough population to pay for the necessary government-funded things. How about working to make Arkansas a better place to live for taxpayers who will want to move there and help fund these things? Improve schools, social programs, jobs, etc. Otherwise who wants to move there? You have a mainly empty state with the ones there carrying the whole tax burden.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 12:02 p.m.I am not a Republican but independent.The issue for me is taxes should not be the government's only form of revenue.I live in a Democratic city where taxes especially for property owners is some of the highest in the state.Which ironically is mostly Republican state.I believe every one should pay their fair share.I mean how many 20 million school bonds in the last 4 years can a city ask for.Mind you these same people expect parents to pay $2.10 a day for meals in school.The schools are in disrepair and teachers are expected to supply their own supplies( with no raise in sight). So where is the money the old contractor delays, budget underestimates yet the city and the school boards get raises.Despite our mayor's own objectives to higher taxes.I just think if these are higher educated and business minded individuals can no one think if a better solution?

      Delete
  6. Well done Jed,such an ambitious young man,and happy anniversary John and Abby.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With his background I'm sure Jed will be a successful politician.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I visited his website and, although my views are 99% contrary to his (we do agree on the topic of policies honoring and supporting our veterans), I'm happy to see him so engaged. Our country is not perfect, but one of the many things that makes it great is the ability of every citizen to engage in political and civil action, for the betterment of our society. Sadly, many do not do so, and thus do a great disservice to themselves and our country. We need as many voices, opinions, and actions as we possibly can, even contrasting ones, because where there is uniformity and lack of debate, there is no progress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your civil sentiment. We need more of that across party lines!

      Delete
  9. Good luck,Jed! Best wishes for your future!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Whoever authored Jeb’s plans as a State Rep. failed to elaborate on the details to accomplish said plans. Each topic had empty content.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @6:54 I agree, it's not helpful or flattering to Jed as a candidate.

      Delete
  11. I read your political goals for state rep. I feel all your priorities are extreme and you will not understand bipartisanship or opinions not inline with yours. You are very young, inexperienced and under educated; I can’t vote for someone who is not his own person yet...I get the vibe he is his father’s mouth piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arkansas has had an openly gay woman elected to the General Assembly. I wonder how Jed would feel working with someone like that. If he's going to try to hold any elected office, he's going to have to learn to get along with others not like himself. So far, his sheltered upbringing hasn't given him much experience in that department.

      Delete
    2. 5:58 I totally agree!

      Delete
  12. I learnt so much about Jed by visiting his website than watching the show etc ! Best of luck with it all !
    greetings from Sydney Australia !

    ReplyDelete
  13. Um....just a suggestion. He states that he is pro-life and a member of the National Rifle Association all in one sentence. This sounds kind of contradicting with 'pro-life' and 'rifle' in the same sentence. Not sure if this matters in the States as I'm Canadian. All the best, Jed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between murdering a defenseless baby, and owning a gun which can be used for much more than just self defense, for example, sport and hunting. How do people not understand that?

      Delete
    2. Many of us in the U.S. understand what he means. Being pro-life means that you are against abortion. Being pro-gun acknowledges that you believe people have a right to own a gun (which can be used to obtain food or provide defense).

      Delete
    3. Because I own guns and never plan to kill anyone - especially a helpless baby! - with those guns, and I don't think anyone else should kill babies either.

      Delete
    4. @12:59. Most people have no problem with people who hunt for food and those, especially in the far north, who need a gun for protection against animals. But that is a hunting rifle, not a hand gun or an assault weapon. If someone feels they need for a gun for protection from their fellow citizens, there is something seriously wrong with the society he or she lives in or with the person.

      A gun is designed to kill, to take a life. It is all too easy to use as we have seen time and again. I can only assume that those who have been killed by guns are not considered 'worthy' of life. Property is more important than a person's life. If you are pro-life, you should be FOR LIFE, no matter what.

      Delete
    5. @7:54 What society has ever had ZERO murderers and violent criminals? What society has ever been free from its members hurting each other? There have ALWAYS been those people who want to hurt others, even in the most "civilized" societies. And this isn't about "property being more important than a person's life." This is about protecting yourself and your family if someone wants to harm or kill you. I am "for life" - for my life and my loved ones' lives first and foremost. For the lives of innocent people.

      Delete
  14. Great! Hope he wins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who's going to move to be with him if he wins? He can't live away from home on his own! He needs to court and court fast.....

      Delete
  15. Interesting reading Jed’s views on current events. Why does he refer to constitutional rights as “God given”. The US Constitution was not written by God. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who was a strong proponent of the separation between Church and State.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I caught that wording as well.

      Delete
    2. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness —US Constitution. The rights of all people come from God, not government.

      Delete
    3. Actually, the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were outspoken proponents of the separation of Church and State. However, to them the separation of Church and State was that the State would not establish a national religion nor head the Church (nod to their experience and knowledge of England's history of the monarch being ruled by the Catholic Church, followed by Henry VIII establishing and ruling an enforced State Church- with both of those "churches" conducting forced conversions with dissenters being killed). Thomas Jefferson was the writer selected to record the Declaration of Independence; it was authored by the Committee of Five (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman). Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote out the Constitution.

      Delete
    4. @11:21 The same people who wrote those words owned slaves and didn't want women to vote. I think we all know that the original Constitution needed to be tweaked, and it has been 27 times so far.

      Delete
    5. Stitcher: If that were true, it would be in our Constitution. It's NOT. The DOI was not meant to be a governing document.

      Delete
    6. "Separation of Church and State" is in no part of our founding documents, nor is it a subject of any federalist paper. The Quote itself comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. It has no actual legal bearing and was written as an explanation to the fears of a congregation that the government might enforce a state religion just as the King of England had.

      While setting up (establishing) a national religion is in fact unconstitutional, there is no limitation on personal conviction religious or otherwise for anyone working in or interacting with the government.

      Contrary to what is currently taught, your religious liberty remains in tact regardless of your position, whether that is a social worker for the state, or president of the united states. You have no obligation to live differently or with different convictions, you have lost no rights by taking office.

      Delete
    7. The separation of church and state is the first item in the bill of rights.

      Delete
  16. What a great idea and good vocation for him. He's very young, but I appreciate his religious and conservative values. I'm sure Jim Bob, having once served in public office himself, would be a good mentor for Jed, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vocation? I think we have too many people in our state legislatures and in Washington as it is making it a life-time career. I'm all for term limits.

      Delete
    2. Why would religion come into play here? Politics and religion are supposed to be separate.

      Delete
    3. I don't think people should make political office a career. We have too many examples of how that leads to corruption. I think term limits would do a greal deal to curb the excesses we now see in the political arena.

      Delete
    4. @Nov4, 2:58PM I agree, maybe the OP misspoke, but it was never intended for political office to be a profession. No office had a term limit at the founding of our country, but at the same time, none of them came with anything other than reimbursements for expenses for their time. All of our founders had regular jobs they would attend to between sessions. It is time for term limits, pay cuts, and life time incentives for politicians. Because clearly, unlike Washington, most of our public "servants" have the decency to admit that it is too much power for one man to keep for life.

      Delete
    5. Uhm, no...politics and religion are not supposed to be separate. Throughout the history of the United States, the vast majority of our leaders (both at state and federal levels) have openly declared their religious beliefs/affiliations alongside their political positions. No one is required to check their religious beliefs at the door to Congress or any other political office- nor should they be. Our Constitution guarantees their right to practice their religion-any time, anywhere (including the halls of Congress, the Oval Office, and the Supreme Court bench). Misconceptions and misinformation like this are why every citizen needs to know what is theirs in the Constitution.

      Delete
  17. I'm confused, he only interned for a day at a politicians office, had a non-official homeschool highschool diploma...why would he be able to make any political decisions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really think he'd make political decisions on his own? He's the electable face of a lot of non-electable older men behind him, telling him what to do and how to do it.

      Delete
    2. Two quick thoughts: How do you know his high school diploma is "non-official"? Many home school programs are actually accredited. Are you aware how many students graduate from a public school with an "official" high school diploma and read at a third-fourth grade level and have fourth-eighth grade math skills? I teach, come from a family of public school teachers, and have friends who are teachers, school psychologists, and in human resources ...all of whom are angry and frustrated that large numbers of our young adults are being passed out of the public school system, lacking basic skills...which is going to directly negatively impact their future potential (emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially). Having that "official" piece of paper doesn't mean as much as you think it does to today's employer. The public school system has sold out our young adults, in the name of federal funding, and seriously devalued those "official" diplomas they're handing out.

      Delete
  18. He’s 20 years old. How can he have the wisdom and experience to do this well? There’s no rush! Grow a little more mature, learn more from others around you with more experience in the world, and further your education before you take on public office at the state level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is running for state representative and not at federal level. Those candidates are often younger.

      Delete
    2. 9:50 That doesn't make them any more qualified.

      Delete
    3. I don't think he fully realizes what he's getting in to. The Democrats will destory him and hurt him for life, with false accusations that will go state-wide. It's a terrible business, and knowing Jed personally, I admire him, but I just don't think it's a good idea at the moment.

      Delete
    4. @9:50 State Representatives may be younger but I would hope that they have some experience of the world and a good education. A 20-year-old kid who works for his dad and still lives at home is too young.

      Delete
    5. 9:50- they’re usually younger as in they are in their 30s or 40s, not barely out of their teens

      Delete
    6. I agree he is young but you are not entirely accurate. We had a young representative in our area. Many use the local and state offices as a possible stepping stone to higher office. Not saying it isn't young but for that office I wouldn't rule him out due to his age.

      Delete
    7. Anon 4:33. The Democrats? Are you serious? Politics is a rough and tumble world at best. IMO Jed is ill prepared for it, but blaming the "Democrats" for everything that might go wrong in his life is ridiculous.

      Delete
    8. Anon 4:33. ??? Why do you think Jed is this fragile? If he is that weak then he should remain at home with his parents and not enter the world of politics. I think it's wrong to blame the "Democrats" or anyone else if he's unable to cope with real life.

      Delete
    9. 4:33- Politics is a dog-eat-dog culture. The GOP plays that game just as well as the other side.

      Delete
  19. Do they need a new stack of used campaign signs to sled down the front hill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 😂 your comment really made me laugh!

      Delete
  20. I read his Bio. Question: Are all conservatives members of the NRA? Why do those two things always go together?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all, but conservatives typically believe in the second amendment.

      Delete
    2. Anon 8:47 Yes true conservatives believe in the right to protect lives both inside and outside the womb. We feel a love and responsibility to keep our families safe. These are dangerous times we live in which is the reason for alarms on our cars, homes, cameras on our homes and workplaces and guns in case the dangerous thugs and psychopaths get through those barriers. We are given the God given right to life and if some thug or psychopath decides to forfeit their life knowing the risk they are taking by breaking into our home and coming after us and our love ones then so be it.

      Delete
    3. 1:34PM: Interesting answer. Always wondered, as someone else stated on this thread, how ProLife and rifle can be in the same sentence. You see guns as protecting lives outside the womb, and anti-abortion is protecting lives inside the womb. I look at guns as a means to violence, and an easy way to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people, by people that are insane, angry, or frustrated

      Delete
    4. 1:34 : I am so lucky and thankful to live in a country (ie not USA) where we are not paranoid about “thugs or psychopaths (not sure how you define the latter) coming after us”. In our civilised country (which is not burdened by a second amendment) we leave the rule of law to the police.

      Delete
    5. 5:39- Beautifully said!

      Delete
    6. @1:34- I see gun violence as a vicious cycle. The more firearms we have in circulation, the more they fall into the wrong hands. I support strict laws regarding the sale of ammunition. If you're a hunting rights advocate, fine, but there's no need to stock pile an arsenal. I have a neighbor who has more guns and ammo than any reasonable person would ever need.

      Delete
    7. 5:39 When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Everyone has the right - no, everyone has the responsibility to defend themselves, to be in charge of their own safety. I'm pretty sure no matter what country you live in, people have died waiting for the police. I'm sure you have thugs and psychopaths as well, since sadly they are a part of the human race.

      Delete
    8. @6:51 And people have gone to jail because their split-second decisions in those situations have been wrong. Innocent people have died from that vigilante mentality.

      Delete
    9. Although I can fully respect people being (conservatively) religious and therefore pro-life, I must admit that it frustrates me how those very same people seem to have absolutely no problem with wanting to force others to live according to their own conviction. I don't see how it can be justified and I can only imagine the outrage if the tables were turned.

      That being said. I wish Jed all the best in his endeavors. It's wonderful to see a young man engaging in local politics, wanting to make a difference in his community.

      Delete
    10. @9:45 It's not "vigilante" to defend yourself in your own home! This isn't about gunning your enemies down on the street, this is about having the means to protect yourself if someone comes after you. If it's never happened to you it's easy to brush it off. But if your life's ever been threatened by someone, you take personal safety more seriously.

      Delete
    11. @7:16 You keep your doors locked, you have a security system, and you call 911 if someone is lurking. You don't need to be sitting on your front porch with the shotgun cocked, expecting trouble. I have to wonder what someone is up to in their life anyway, if someone else is coming after them.

      Delete
    12. Self-defense has always been a justification for killing or harming someone. Some states' "castle doctrine" laws take this further and, yes, do equate to vigilante justice in the eyes of many, including myself.

      Delete
  21. Sheltered young man enters the world of politics. That should be interesting. I hope he wins and goes to Little Rock. That will be culture shock for him.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is Wonderful News!!! Jedidiah stands for what we stand for and so we are going to pray that he gets elected for that position.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why do Duggar websites always have a Donate button?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because that's the way political elections work. People donate if they want to help get someone elected.

      Delete
    2. Campaign websites always have a donate button.

      Delete
    3. He may be asked to disclose his tax returns. He has to report campaign financing. This should be interesting.

      Delete
    4. You take campaign money and you are beholden to the people who contributed. Big money expects big results in their favor later. Plain and simple.

      Delete
    5. Anon 7:05. Yes. People in political office had to make financial disclosures and report on campaign contributions. That should be interesting reading.

      Delete
  24. I wish him the best. Way to go!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well at least he's "100% pro-life" instead of that ambivalent 62% or 49% or 23% you always hear about. He had 99 other choices, and look which one he picked! (Actually, 100 other choices, if you count zero and neglect fractions.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “100% prolife” means that he thinks it’s wrong in all instances. Some people are prolife in most areas but then think under some circumstances (such as rape) it’s ok. I understand his clarification.

      Delete
    2. 100% pro-life means no wiggle room for abortion. There is actually a range of tolerance for abortion. Some are 100% for it, some only against it after a heartbeat, some only for it in the case of rape, incest, or mother's life in danger, etc.

      Delete
    3. Being 100% pro-life is harsh if it means endangering a mother by denying her a medical procedure. Jed should have learned the potential dangers of pregnancy by watching his own mother go through her last two. Would Jed have been so 100% pro-life if his mother needed a procedure to save her life?

      Delete
    4. Then you use the medical procedure to take the baby, not kill the baby.

      Delete
    5. @9:51 Often the medical procedure is needed before the baby would be viable. Taking the baby would lead to an unfortunate outcome anyway.

      Delete
  26. Let him stand up for what he believes in. We should be giving him confidence and courage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @10:54 That's the thing, though. If Jed is elected, he should be standing up for what his CONSTITUENTS believe in. His personal beliefs need to be set aside at that point for the good of all and for what the people in his district want. Even if you vote someone into office, you don't always agree with what they vote on once elected. The elected person is a representative of all, even those who didn't vote for them, not a person with power to enact what they personally want. Democracy...representation...civil rights... I don't think Jed understands what a responsibility it is to uphold those.

      Delete
    2. I think politicians on both sides have lost the ability to see themselves as representing their entire constituency. They've also lost the ability for civil discourse and to make compromises in many cases. It's either my way or the highway mentality.

      Delete
    3. @6:08 I don't think it's quite a sweeping loss of ability. I think Democrats still see the problems in their districts and actively try to make things better for the middle class and the poor. The Republicans seem to only care about the rich and the businesses. Sure, we need businesses, but if there are so many social problems left unfixed, then who's going to want to work at those businesses, or be able to? We can't be a country of CEO's and forget about the working class problems.

      Delete
  27. Good for Jed.... praying for him that God will give him the wisdom and strength to carry on. Yes, he’s young but his values are strong!! As Christians and or people with moral values and love the USA ... stand up for your rights and go out and support these types of candidates!! God Bless You JED... oh by the way I don’t live in Arkansas I live in Alaska!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I consider myself quite moral and ethical and would not see myself supporting this candidate or any simply because they trumpet their religion.

      Delete
  28. I doubt he is qualified but that is for the people of NWA to decide.

    The general election is a whole year away.

    I hope when he says he will fight for “religious liberty” he means for everyone, not just Conservative Christians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To make a law specifically towards Christianity, for or against, would be unconstitutional. The Alert Academy he went through is very good about teaching constitutionality.

      Though while I would vote for him over the incumbent if I were from his state and district, I am disappointed at the vague statements on his website. There is certainly a great deal of room for explanation, as I doubt he will be the only conservative running for that position.

      Delete
  29. God will use you in mighty ways Jed as you follow Him.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A reality star going into politics... what could go wrong lol

    ReplyDelete
  31. Good luck Jedidiah. You are a courageous young man to fight to make things better. God Bless.
    Joan,Marion and Marilyn

    ReplyDelete
  32. Someone please clarify. He's running for District 89 but his parents' house is in District 87. Did he move? Take a rental or buy an address in District 89? I thought you had to live in the district you represent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's suddenly registered to vote and living in District 87. All very odd. Did his backers hand-pick that district for him?

      Delete
    2. If he's not living in the district he wants to represent he should be disqualified. Since ALL the unmarried Duggar offspring live at their parent's home, that would be unethical for him to run for political office in a district he doesn't live in.

      Delete
    3. He's now registered as living in 89. Typo? @2:34

      Delete
    4. Well, Hillary Clinton did it when she ran for New York senator.

      Delete
    5. 2:34- I believe that the surrounding districts, including where most of the Duggars reside, are currently represented by religious conservatives. In #89, Jed would be running against a popular incumbent who is a highly educated Democrat. It stands to reason that Duggars would make an effort to target that district. How they managed residency for Jed is a big question that should be answered honestly.

      Delete
    6. Anon 10:33. Hillary Clinton was and still is a resident of the state of NY.

      Delete
    7. Anon 8:39. If his parent's house is in District 87 and he's living there something is very strange about his residency and where he's registered to vote.

      Delete
    8. Maybe some of the older boys aren't living at home anymore, and it just hasn't been talked about.

      Delete
    9. Hillary moved to NY and established residency there before she ever ran for office. While it may have been a political move, at least she was actually in residence at a NY address for the necessary time. Can the same be said of Jed, a single male from a family who doesn't let kids live on their own when single? Is his voting address in name only?

      Delete
  33. Anyone else find it jarring that not one of this family of 19 kids (13 of whom are adults) has ever served his/her country in uniform? Something a little off about this 20-yr-old thanking veterans for their service and sacrifice when as far as we know no one in his family has ever bothered to serve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everyone is called to serve, and if you aren't called by your very nature to do so, don't. Serving is something that ought to be honored, but not serving isn't something that should be looked down on.

      Delete
    2. [OP] your comment makes no sense. I am grateful for those that serve in the military. I admire them. I know I could not be them. My brother’s BFF is serving in the military and I admire him, but am also scared for him. It makes more sense for non-military to thank the military than fellow military to thank each other.

      Delete
  34. The Duggar house isn’t even in the district he’s trying to represent. I don’t get it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure? Most states require the representative from each district to be a resident of the district. If that's true he shouldn't be allowed to run in a district he doesn't live in.

      Delete
  35. Good for him, God bless him on his campaign. We need more regular folks in office.

    ReplyDelete
  36. We have a family friend who's son is interested in politics. He has taken all kinds of history and political science classes in college (and has a 4.0 GPA) and is currently interning in DC. Wanting to be a representative means doing the work to be a representative. I would not want to hire someone for a specialized job, without training in that field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You assume the job has requirements your placing upon it. Our founders, while some of them were lawyers, were silversmiths, masons, farmers, doctors, etc. The average age of signers of the Declaration was only 44, and over a dozen of them were under 35. Age and profession are not a requirement that should hold merit above morality.

      Delete
    2. Texas-I'm the Anonymous @!:12 and I totally agree that morality trumps age and profession any day. However, morality does not necessarily equate to knowledge and experience in handling governmental matters. I think we can all agree our founding fathers had significant life experience prior to serving in office and a majority of them had actual military combat experience as well. Generally speaking, those who serve during a war (or wars) are less likely to engage in war unnecessarily and lean heavily toward diplomacy as their first and primary measure, followed by economic sanctions. This constituent prefers voting for candidates with more life experience under their belts than an IBLP-directed candidate. Jedidiah Duggar is not the only candidate with morals. LOL It is indeed possible to find candidates with all three: morals, life experience, and a solid college background in history/political science.

      Delete
    3. @OP I would agree on your statement about military action if it was related to his office, but it isnt. As a state rep he has no part in military actions, that duty is to the President, his generals and to a few other offices.

      One of our founders, and his name slips my mind, said said something to the effect of: I'm glad war is a terrible awful thing, so that it is never taken lightly. I believe morality grounds a man's desisions, experience alone makes a tyrant and a warmonger.

      As for whether or not he is the only candidate, that is absolutely true. You have to pick the best of what your offered.


      I'm currious why you make a poke at IBLP, I'm not all that familiar with that organization. As for a college education, I certainly would rather have someone without one. Especially if they are as young as he is, too much indoctrination instead of teaching.

      Though when it comes down to it, ain't it great we all have our own vote!

      Delete
    4. Texas, just curious, have you been to college? When I look back at my own college experience getting a BSN I don’t feel like I was indoctrinated. There was plenty of education though! It seems like the people who discount education the most are usually the ones who’ve never been to college. Thank goodness most people don’t believe the way you do or we would revert to the Stone Age.

      Delete
    5. Texas @ 9:33- From where did you get your college degree? I'm sorry you feel that you were indoctrinated in a bad way somehow. Please explain why you think this. I have a Master's Degree and am incredibly thankful that I was able to go to college and have a long and successful professional career because of it. Education is what you make it. I think it's terrible when people tear down higher education.

      Delete
    6. Yes, I've been to college twice, to two different Universities. One was a state run university, the other a private Christian university. I found both quite guilty of using textbooks and lesson plans designed to stifle free thought. They each in their own way of teaching you what to think, rather than how to think. A true education is done with facts, not feelings and opinions. I'm very glad to hear you had a great educational experience. But as for my experience and the experiences of those whom I know in my age group, it has not been anything short of an indoctrination camp.

      Though do not get me wrong, I am all for learning. I believe firmly that if we do not educate ourselves we doom our future to repeat past mistakes. After all, a great deal of histories atrocities began with good intentions. There is no better indication of the failure of university education than the rise in young peoples want for Socialism and Communism.

      However, with the access to information we have today, there is little to no reason to believe that going to university is any kind of barrier between peoples and knowledge.

      Delete
    7. @TEXAS You went to a private Christian university and it came as a surprise to you that free thought was being stifled there?

      Delete
  37. I agree that he is young but experience is a great teacher so even if he does not win this round he has gained experience which will stand him in good stead in the future. I do not agree with his policies especially 3nd amendment rights but perhaps as a member of the NRA, he will make some changes????? As mentioned before Pro-Life and being a member/supporting the NRA are in direct conflict. What America needs is less guns and better gun rules. We need to protect our children and young people- both the perpetrator and the victims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being Pro-Life and an NRA supporter are not in direct conflict. Do you know that an NRA member has never committed a mass shooting? But there have been multiple times that a mass shooter was known to be anti-NRA. The NRA is not killing babies - it's not killing anyone! People need to take responsibility for their own choices and not blame an organization that had NOTHING to do with it.

      Delete
  38. I don't like his "religious freedom" statement. He's promoting the right for business to discriminate based on faith - the old "I won't bake a cake for your wedding because I don't believe your wedding should be happening" argument. That would be a huge step backwards for human rights. Star with denying services based on religion, and it's not a big leap until you're denying employment based on religion too. That's what the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which people died fighting for, was supposed to stop. Jed needs to keep his religion out of the state's politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. When the religious take over our government, we're all in trouble because they take away our right to live a different lifestyle than theirs.

      Delete
    2. The state, needs to keep itself out of my business, my house, and my church. That's what actual separation of Church and State is. You have a right to do business with who ever you want to. Each persons rights end where someones begin, you have no right to someones labor just because you are x,y,z. And if a business owner wants to be racist or what have you, he or she is welcome to let the free market decide whether or not its an acceptable business practice.

      Delete
    3. Texas, there's no way you can keep the state out of your business or your house or your church. You can't isolate yourself like that. You have to live somewhere and abide by the rules of that place. You have to pay your taxes to that place. No, businesses cannot discriminate however they want. Churches can only go so far with their practices before they're also going to run afoul of the laws. You want to live in a state, but you don't want to follow its rules or have it "interfere" with you? Makes no sense. You'd have to find an island somewhere.

      Delete
    4. Texas - Absolutely not. If your business takes any government money or perks, then it's illegal to discriminate.

      Delete
    5. Texas- Your last sentence is rather alarming, as it sounds like you don't support the Civil Rights Act. Are you ok with going back to segregation in restaurants, stores, buses, schools, drinking fountains, etc. because you think the "free market" will put the racists out of business? I remember traveling extensively in the south prior to 1964 and it was a sobering and horrifying thing to see "White Only" signs everywhere. People justified this because they thought their Bible supported their views. The free market failed for a very long time in this department.
      If you expect to do business with the public, then you'd better be prepared to do so with anyone, regardless of race, creed, sexuality, or religion. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is just business and isn't giving a stamp of approval.

      Delete
    6. I don't support government force upon anyone's property rights. I think racists are scum myself, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should have any less rights on their property than I do.
      I'm sickened by a few of you who believe that you are entitlted to anyone's labor. Slavery ring a bell? You cannot demand that someone defy sincerely held religious beliefs, use their private property to labor for you without their consent. Doesn't matter if it's a bakery, a hospital, or anywhere else. This is not only unconstitutional, it's un-American. There is a reason why Freedom of speech and free exercise of Religion is #1 in the bill of rights and it's because of folks like you.

      Delete
    7. @Texas: Any business owner would be a fool to be "racist or what have you." They could be setting themselves up for failure and/or a lawsuit. They could be picketed or vandalized. They'd get negative publicity. They'd get panned in their reviews. Soon they'd be attracting attention from the wrong kinds of groups. It would create hate and possibly violence. I can't believe you're advocating for a business - or a world - to operate this way.

      Delete
    8. Texas. Let's get this straight. You want a country where it's OK to let businesses be racist (or what have you). That could start with landlords and realtors. They're in business. It would extend to doctors, dentists, and hospitals. They're in business, too. Car dealers, furniture stores, grocery stores, drug stores, gas stations, and repairmen. You think it would be OK for them to discriminate. No end to this train. All could hop on. Pretty soon you'd have a civil rights divide wider than the Grand Canyon, and there would be the teachers, fire fighters, and police personnel, all caught in the middle - not to mention our kids, who would be witnessing some pretty heavy stuff.

      You think a free market economy would be able to handle this, straighten it out by itself so that everyone was happy, and peace and prosperity would reign? Think again.

      Delete
    9. @ Texas - Denial of service by a business is nowhere near the atrocity of owning humans as property. I can't believe you are trying to equate the two.

      Delete
    10. @Nov 7 9:45AM What is the actual moral difference between a single party owning someone and their labor and the government owning someone and their labor? Answer, there isn't. They are both abhorrent practices and should they even be mentioned should send chills up the spines of free Americans.

      Delete
  39. Good for Jed! Praying for you, Jed, for a successful run!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Good luck Jedidiah, Natasha B

    ReplyDelete
  41. If Jim Bob can once be in office, Jed most certainly can follow in his footsteps. Father like son.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jed can't go around promising anyone anything. Even if elected, he couldn't necessarily fulfill those promises. He'd have to have the state house majority in agreement with him, and the chances of that happening are about the same as the chances of Duggar kids going to the local public school.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Best of luck Jed! Stand your ground, pray about everything and I’m wishing you the best!

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for leaving your comments! We answer as many of your questions as we can, but due to the number of comments we receive daily, we are unable to answer every one. Our aim is to post all points of view, but we do not post anything that is profane, insulting, derogatory, or in poor taste.