Sarah Grace Allen

@RomReddySC @reddyforgov Is this one of the endorsements you claimed you wouldn’t accept?

A NOTE FROM FREEDOM FIGHTER DAVID HENRY LUCAS: To the citizens of South Carolina, My name is David Henry Lucas. Many people in this state know my name because of my case before the United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, a case that arose from a dispute over coastal regulations on the Isle of Palms and resulted in a landmark decision protecting the constitutional rights of private property owners across this nation. When I brought that case, I did so knowing that the fight against the government would be long, expensive, and uncertain. I was able to pursue it only because I had the financial means to do so. Most citizens do not. Too often, individuals are forced into submission, not because they are wrong, but because they cannot afford to defend their rights against the power of the state. I stood my ground because I could. But when that case was decided, the benefit did not belong to me alone. Millions of Americans gained stronger protection for their property and their liberty because one citizen was willing — and able — to fight. Today, I see that same kind of fight in Rom Reddy. Like my own case, his battle with the State of South Carolina over coastal regulations is not simply about one man’s property. It is about the principle that the government must not be allowed to overreach its authority at the expense of the people it serves. It is about whether citizens still have the right to stand up to the state and be heard. Over the course of this controversy, I have come to know Rom personally. He is a successful businessman who has no need to seek public office for financial gain. In fact, by any reasonable measure, he could make far greater returns on his investments by remaining in private life than by entering politics. Yet he has chosen a harder path. He has chosen to put his time, his fortune, and his reputation on the line in order to challenge the growth of government, the abuse of regulatory power, and the corruption that too often follows when authority goes unchecked. That kind of decision should sound familiar to every American. It is exactly what our Founding Fathers did when they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure the freedom of this country. Many of them were ruined financially for doing so, but they acted because they believed that liberty was worth the cost. Rom Reddy is showing that same spirit today. South Carolina needs a governor who cannot be bought, cannot be intimidated, and does not owe his position to political insiders, just like President Trump. We need a governor who has already proven that he will stand against government overreach, even when the fight is difficult and the outcome uncertain. For these reasons, and because I believe his character, independence, and courage are exactly what this state needs at this moment, I am proud to give my full and unequivocal endorsement to Rom Reddy for Governor of South Carolina. Respectfully, DHL

As an update from my last post, Rom Reddy continues to dodge my questions, as well as make false claims. After FitsNews shared my post on X, Rom responded to FitsNews by claiming that changing the page name “changes it historically.” This is the same line I was given by his campaign strategist, as well as a podcaster who decided to enter the chat. However, as can be seen by Stephen Goldfinch’s page history, for example, changing the name does NOT change the “created as” name retroactively. After providing this proof, Flotsam and Jetsam retaliated with no contradiction of their own, but instead resorted to petty personal insults and demeaning my questions as “Facebook conspiracy theories.” Even Fits shared my proof and referred to it as a “spat.” Interesting take from a news source claiming to be unbiased, when their very own Dylan Nolan has transitioned over to being the communications director for Reddy. A little while ago Reddy’s campaign stated "DOGESC was a committee," and that "the campaign bought the assets of the committee, which is totally legal." Does this sound like an outsider, straight shooter? After the Reddy campaign spent the last 24 hours taking all sorts of positions on what happened, they are apparently going to issue a new statement tomorrow. Let me be clear - I truly couldn’t care less if Reddy thought about running in 2024. Ralph Norman created his campaign page in 2016. However, Ralph isn’t claiming to constituents a gubernatorial run was “never on his bucket list.” The issue is simple: If a political page was built using PAC resources, gaining tens of thousands of followers under one purpose, and then quietly converted into a personal campaign page, that raises serious ethical questions. Furthermore, if a candidate has built his entire brand on demanding transparency from others, but can’t give a straight answer about his own timeline on day one of his campaign… that’s a problem. Deflection. Insults. False claims. And an attempt to minimize the issue as “silly” so no one looks too closely. That tactic is as old as politics itself: When you can’t refute the facts, you try to make the person asking the question look ridiculous. You can demean my intelligence and purpose all you want. But voters deserve clarity from Mr. Accountability himself, not coordinated condescension from the hired hands.

Facebook Expert Here 🙋‍♀️ Changing the page name does not “change it historically.” @SarahGAllenSC is correct. I just pulled up several examples to confirm.

@reddyforgov @fitsnews From the current page of Stephen Goldfinch, originally created as “Rep. Stephen Goldfinch,” but currently named “Stephen Goldfinch.” Further proof that changing the page name doesn’t “change it historically” as claimed.

@fitsnews When you change the name of a page it changes it historically. You would have to check with Ralph's team but we are pretty sure he wasn't running for Governor in 2016.

😬

Facebook literally says this feature exists to track changes in a page’s purpose. Changing the name historically would make that feature pointless. I’m not sure what your screenshot proves other than Ralph created the page in 2016, with the possibility of running at some point. The difference is he’s not going around claiming he never thought about it. Was PAC money used to build the following of the DOGESC page?

@riccochet1022 @KellyLMcCarty Transparency is my motive through asking questions and seeking answers. Why Rom can’t answer them is beyond me.

@SarahGAllenSC @KellyLMcCarty Sarah, are you going to file a complaint or what’s your motive here?

As promised, I’ve continued asking questions. Whether answers will be given remains to be seen. Yesterday, Rom Reddy was asked when he first considered running for governor. His answer? One month ago. However, according to Facebook’s own page transparency history, the account formerly known as DOGE SC was originally created as “Reddy for Governor” in August of 2024. So, which is it? Putting aside that SC Confidential reported two months ago that Reddy intended to run for governor (and many already knew it), the actual page gives evidence of this. Furthermore, if a significant amount of money was spent through a PAC to build the DOGE SC following, only for it to later be converted into a personal campaign platform, that’s not just a rebrand. It raises serious questions about how campaign assets were built, transferred, and whether proper disclosure requirements were followed. For someone who built a platform on demanding transparency in government, this is an interesting way to begin a campaign. Because if the timeline doesn’t add up on day one… what else doesn’t?

@RomReddySC @Nalin_Haley Interesting that you answered here but never responded to my question on Facebook. “Reddy for Governor” is not a recent purchase date. It’s the original name created in 2024 for what became the DOGESC page. These aren’t useless rumors. These are facts.

Yes it is fair to ask. The reason is reddyforgovernor purchased the myvoice Facebook page to keep our Facebook users and comply with all ethics laws. The page name of myvoice was changed to reddyforgovernor. The dates you reference are the set up for the original myvoice page. If I actually planned to enter the race 2 years ago why would I wait. Maybe a common sense question will keep all these useless rumors from circulating

To the DOGESC Army, Yesterday, I announced I was entering the gubernatorial race in South Carolina. Even a couple of months ago, if you had asked me the question of running for office, my answer would be a hard no. Never has been on my bucket list. What changed? Judicial reform is what changed. Together we advanced the most consequential judicial reform bill in history. It passed the house and is awaiting Senate passage. Given how anti-constitutional and anti-citizen the current system of picking judges is, I would have thought judicial reform would fly through the approval process. Instead , it has been a struggle. This made me realize what an uphill battle we have for all the other big things we plan to do- equal parenting, tax cuts, regulatory cuts, permit reform, forensic audits, education reform, fixing roads etc. etc. I realized that if we were serious, I had to either pick a candidate in the existing field or run myself. During some of the recent rallies, I would talk to many of you and even do some informal polls to see if you all could get behind someone already in this race. The answer was consistently no. A few weeks ago, I discussed this with my family. As you know, my daughter Isabelle is a freshman in high school, and it is not the best time. I also told Renee I would not accept campaign donations as I felt special interests had corrupted SC politics. This means we would have to run this race with family money. To my surprise, they felt given how the DOGESC movement had grown and how enthusiastic you all are, I had no choice but to give this a shot and take a chance that if the dog caught the car, we could transform this state. So here we are- for the first time in my life we are in a political race. I go into this knowing you all will always have my back. Due to your commitment, DOGESC changed the conversation in this state and eventually drove the policy narrative. I will be honored if you will join this race and see if we can do with this race what we did with DOGESC. I think of our founders who were prepared to die for the dream they handed us of a self-governing citizen whose rights come from God. It motivates me to want to fight to restore that dream on the 250th anniversary of our founding. I hope you will continue to stay with me on this journey. Click here to get more involved. Rom Reddy

So you thought you were following a nonprofit government watchdog group, @DOGE SC? Nay nay. You are now following a campaign for Governor, starring none other than the DOGE SC founder himself, Rom Reddy. How convenient for a newly filed candidate to suddenly have 34,000 followers overnight. Reddy’s run may not come as a complete surprise. But it is interesting that a candidate whose motto is “Time for Something Different” has a history of donating thousands of dollars to some of the very politicians who have had SC in a chokehold of the same old same old. SC Confidential took a closer look at those records. You can read the article here: sc-confidential.com/sc-statehouse/… Below you’ll also find Reddy’s response to the article, along with my reply. While questions may be uncomfortable to the less than transparent, as Rom once said, it’s our civic duty to continue asking them. And we will. Reddy or not.

@nygamecock Oh but he only decided to run “one month ago”… okay.

Look what he did on Facebook. Created the page for Governor, flipped it to DOGE, then flipped it to Governor today. Who ya fooling here? The people of South Carolina.

@SarahGAllenSC lays out a win for We the People. 𝐋𝐂𝐑𝐏 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩: 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐-𝐨𝐟-𝟑 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 Last night’s Lexington County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting was enlightening to say the least. After special guest speaker Hamp Redmond, Chairman Mark Weber opened the business portion of the meeting with an officer’s report emphasizing his commitment to keeping meetings short, ending on time, and becoming more disciplined with process and Robert’s Rules of Order. Efficiency. Order. Structure. Ironically, the moment he concluded, Second Vice Chair Debbie Heim’s “report” proceeded as a nearly 30-minute lecture on how a bill becomes law. To be fair, this concept was already masterfully covered in about three minutes by Schoolhouse Rock!, specifically the cinematic masterpiece, I’m Just a Bill. After multiple additional leadership reports, we finally arrived at the 3 resolutions on the agenda, right at the 8pm deadline. The chair then asked the body whether we wished to extend the meeting to actually conduct the party’s business. To my knowledge, business meetings exist for the Executive Committee to conduct business, not to sit politely while leadership enjoys the dulcet tones of its own officer reports. ⸻ 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 #𝟏: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐀𝐜𝐭 The first resolution supported the SAVE America Act. @PrestonBaines offered two amendments: 1. A technical amendment. The title of the resolution and the references throughout were to the SAVE Act, which is a different bill than what was passed by the US House and being considered by the senate. 2. An additional sentence encouraging the U.S. Senate to use the talking filibuster and any means if necessary to pass the bill. Debate was nominal, both amendments passed and the amended resolution passed. Then came the real headline. ⸻ 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 #𝟐: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟐-𝐨𝐟-𝟑 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 The proposed candidate qualification resolution would require any Republican candidate to have voted in two of the last three Republican primaries in order to be eligible to run in a primary. Though party leadership exists to facilitate debate, not advocate from the chair, Debbie Heim opened discussion with a lengthy argument in favor of the resolution before it was even read in full. She framed it as allowing county parties to “recommend” candidates and cited Harriet Holman, a former Democrat county councilwoman who switched parties and flipped a long-held Democrat state house seat. I raised my hand to clarify that a 2-of-3 requirement would override any county recommendation system, despite how it was being characterized. Debbie’s response was repeated reframing of the rule as merely “recommendational,” and when I pressed the inconsistency, my question was ignored and instead I was repeatedly asked if I wanted to offer an amendment. No clarification. No direct answer. Just deflection and condescension. Meanwhile, @JayforHouse85 had his hand raised for some time to disapprove of the resolution before being recognized, as leadership repeatedly returned to the microphone themselves. ⸻ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐱𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐲 My brother John was serving as proxy for our other brother and precinct EC, George. George arrived late, but made it before the end of the meeting. When John stood to speak during discussion, Debbie Heim announced he could no longer serve as proxy because George was now physically present. We were told this was a rule regarding proxies. Despite his willingness to comply with the new enforcement, John accurately noted that this “rule” has never been enforced in prior meetings. Proxies have routinely continued speaking and voting even after the principal arrived. Debbie Heim proceeded to state that George would need to leave the room if John wished to continue speaking, at which point George excused himself. ⸻ “𝐖𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐑𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠” During debate, John raised concerns as a young Republican that this 2-of-3 rule would effectively hinder younger Republicans from participating. At that point, Debbie Heim and other members of leadership openly admitted they do not want young people running for offices, whether internal or public. That statement alone deserves its own reflection. Other members on the floor continued to offer their concerns regarding the new resolution, namely: 1. Unfair impact on military members. 2. The contradiction between the resolution’s language and the South Constitution regarding ballot access and the right of voters to choose their candidates. Debbie Heim denied this, at which point the EC expressing his concern read aloud the actual resolution, which confirmed his rebuttal. At each point being made on the floor, Debbie Heim and other members of leadership continued to claim the existence of “exceptions” and “waivers” despite no such verbiage being present in the proposed resolution. ⸻ 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐥 Preston Baines delivered a comprehensive rebuttal. He dismantled the example used by leadership of a self-described Bernie Sanders supporter who ran as a Republican. Preston revealed the rest of the story, noting that this candidate received less than 3% of the vote, having zero impact on the race. He also highlighted the obvious contradiction that while the SCGOP routinely celebrates “growing the party” by welcoming converts, this rule would prevent new Republicans from running for years. Finally, he addressed the elephant in the room: that despite the denials from leadership, this resolution appears aimed squarely at candidate for Attorney General @davidpascoesc, who is currently winning straw polls across Republican clubs statewide. Preston noted that while the narrative from the SCGOP and county leadership insists they’ve supported this policy “for years,” the 2-of-3 component is a new addition, not included in any previous closed primary bills. Finally, Preston moved to table the resolution. Chairman Weber immediately corrected him that “lay on the table” is the appropriate way to motion. That wasn’t the first time Mark had said that during the meeting. Nobody ever states the motion in that way in organizational bodies by the way. The motion to table passed nearly unanimously, with one lone “nay” from the back. The chair then immediately opened the floor for adjournment before the final resolution on the agenda was ever presented: Preston’s resolution to endorse the clean closed primary bill, H5183. There’s little doubt it would have passed. But the timing is worth noting nonetheless. ⸻ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 If the candidate qualification proposal is so popular and so principled, why is it being pushed from the top down? Why the procedural gymnastics? Why the sudden need to narrow who may run? It makes you wonder why the powers that be feel so suddenly threatened that their need for control has become obvious for all to see. In the end, last night was a huge win for liberty, and the LCRP voting members were heard loud and clear: We the people have the right to choose our candidates, not @SCGOP gatekeepers with vendettas on the line.

We the People have the right to choose our candidates, not @SCGOP gatekeepers.

A huge thank-you to @CharlieOnAir for having me! Now let’s get our primaries closed.

Big promises deserve careful scrutiny. Read this before you decide whether to clap or question. sc-confidential.com/sc-statehouse/…

Interesting that the same people who sent thousands of harassing messages, death threats, unmarked mail, stalked me, reported my name to the FBI, tried to destroy my business, wished I would be “r*ped and murdered” in prison, and labeled me a “domestic terrorist” for peacefully attending the January 6th rally are NOW the same people encouraging volatile protests, retaliatory violence against law enforcement, and demonizing agents for defending themselves against violent attackers. You don’t have to agree with me. But you could at least try to be consistent.

It’s hard to believe this even needs to be said. A Kershaw County service member, currently forward-deployed to serve our nation, is being denied his right to representation within his own Republican Party here at home. Before deploying, he followed every proper procedure and designated his wife as his proxy—so his vote and voice would still be heard while he fulfills his duty overseas. sc-confidential.com/scgop/a-line-t…

Let’s go 🔥🔥🔥

Here’s a clip from last night’s Owen Report with @OwenShroyer1776 . Finally, a candidate with the GUTS to CALL OUT Drew McKissick and his godless @SCGOP, instead of schmoozing to the Republican status quo in order to “win elections.” For the last 40+ years we’ve let the foxes in the henhouse and continue to turn a blind eye in the name of coop unity. It’s time to stop clutching our pearls and start flipping some tables instead. Dump @LindseyGrahamSC. Dump Drew. Dump the Uniparty GOP. @MarkLynchSC is our man of the hour. 🔥