The Reddy Room

10/12/2026

During the gubernatorial race, I took a lot of flak for protecting my private property based on a simple constitutional principle—if land is deeded to you and you pay taxes on it, government cannot step onto your land and claim they have authority over it without buying it. A large American flag flies proudly on my property in honor of that principle.

Now, the bureaucrats at the Department of Environmental Services (DES) are coming for you dock owners. I do not own a dock and have no skin in this game, but I recognize the playbook. Unelected bureaucrats are coming for your rights as dock owners with the same talking points. For all of you dock owners, read this post and act.

This is the DES playbook used on beaches. They plan to rinse and repeat with dock owners. It starts with the bureaucrats at DES (who run their own evil empire with zero oversight) quoting the same noble objective that goes something like this:

DES claims they have been "tasked to promote the economic and social welfare of the citizens while protecting the fragile areas of the coast" (this is similar language used by their masters—the far-left, radical Coastal Conservation League, a 501(c)(3) taxpayer-subsidized organization). All this means is that, in the name of the environment, private property rights will be shredded by a bunch of bureaucrats we never elected.

DES says they are not changing the law (which they are not authorized to do) but merely "clarifying" existing law, so it makes life easier for them and the citizens they enforce these laws on. These "clarifications" are done in the form of regulations (the state has almost 90k of them), which have the force of law. As they did on beach regulations and as they are proposing to do with docks, these are not "clarifications" but wholesale changes that give them more power and take away the rights of private citizens.

How did they come up with these "clarifications"? The same way as beaches—a "blue-ribbon workgroup" that is a cover for their pals at the Coastal Conservation League and a bunch of other left-leaning environmentalists.

For all you dock owners, pay close attention to the changes in regulations they are proposing, especially for R. 30-1.D(50) and R. 30-12 A(2). They claim these changes are to "streamline standards applicable for construction of private and joint-use docks" throughout the state. They plan an "information session" on October 13th in N. Charleston and a formal hearing at the Administrative Law Court in Columbia on October 27th. They will then submit it to the House and Senate Committees with the lie that these changes merely clarify existing law, and these committees will rubber-stamp these changes that become the new law. Get involved now and lawyer up ASAP. Maybe too late, but that is what they count on. Being a surprise to you is part of the plan.

The preamble to the changes that are repeated about a dozen times in the amendments says "the SC coast has experienced a significant population growth including a proliferation of private docks leading to navigation, access and natural resource impacts." The bureaucrats at DES are therefore going to fix this not by changing the law and going through a formal process like they should but by "clarifying existing regulation." You decide whether a handful of items I have listed below (not the full list, by the way) qualifies as a clarification.

The new regulations change allowable dock square footage and the width of the creeks. The calculation of width appears to be at staff discretion. Some changes are blatant—for example, docks will not be permitted in creeks less than 21 feet wide, up from 10 feet wide. This is no clarification but a change in the law.

Joint-use docks changed from 2 times square footage to 1.5 times square footage.

Removed language in some cases that "boat storage structures will not count against total dock square footage." So, presumably, they will now count toward the square footage limitation. Boat lifts and drive-ons also appear to count toward allowable square footage.

Changed requirements for roofs on docks and now appear to be largely at the discretion of DES staff.

Department staff now has discretion to determine allowable channelward dock extensions with vague new requirements (that will always be interpreted against you, judging by their approach on beaches).

Maintenance and repair definitions appear to be at the discretion of staff—words like "major engine repair" is prohibited. Presumably, a desk-bound bureaucrat will determine major vs. not so major. Requirements on whether normal maintenance to piers and walkways will be allowed are vague.

It is not clear to me how grandfathering works after a storm or after a sale. If not questioned, it will be left to the discretion of staff or will require compliance with the new regulations.

There are numerous other restrictive changes couched as clarifications to fool these committees that approve them. Not that it takes much to fool them.

When I ran for Governor, I ran on the principle that our rights come from God. Government's job is to protect or secure these rights. So, even though I don't own a dock, I can see how wrong this is and how the role of Government in our lives needs to be reset, or we will lose the dream our Founders had of a self-governing citizen.

For all of you who may have an interest in this, please read up on yet another power grab in what is supposedly a red state and fight this before you give these folks more firepower to victimize you. As Einstein said, "The strength of our Constitution depends entirely on the determination of every citizen to defend it." God bless this great Republic.

10/05/2026

**WHY THE USA TURNS BLUER THIS NOVEMBER**

The 2026 midterms are on us. All signs point to the Republicans losing ground in both the US House and Senate, but also in some closely contested gubernatorial races.

Current predictions look like the Democrats will win a majority in the US House with between 225 to 230 seats. Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. Ugh!

The bigger concern is the US Senate. The Republicans currently hold a 53-47 edge. There are 35 out of the 100 seats in the Senate up for election in November. Unfortunately, the Republicans defend 22 out of these 35 seats. The Democrats need to defend their 13 and pick up 4 from the Republicans to gain a majority. It looked unlikely as little as 2 months ago, but things have changed.

Solid Republican seats in Texas, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa are now in play. The Democrats looked vulnerable in Georgia and Michigan, but Georgia now looks like it will stay in the Democrat column.

In Texas, after President Trump endorsed the very weak Ken Paxton, the Democrat Talarico has tied the race, which is unbelievable in ruby-red Texas; Susan Collins, the incumbent Republican, is struggling to hold her ground in Maine; the popular Democratic 2-term Governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina has taken a lead over the Trump-endorsed Michael Whatley; Jon Husted, who was appointed in 2025 to replace JD Vance in Ohio, is in a battle against former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown; and in Iowa, Representative Ashley Hinson, the Republican, appears to be tied up with Representative Josh Turek, a Paralympic Gold medalist. More significantly, the Republicans in these races appear to be losing momentum.

A Senate loss in addition to a House loss will be an unmitigated disaster, especially given the extreme left tilt the Democrats have taken. In today's system, Bill Clinton and John Kennedy will have to run as Republicans!

The question is how did we get here so quickly after across-the-board wins in 2024? Many of the reasons can be narrowed to two self-inflicted wounds and terrible messaging.

The self-inflicted wounds started with the 2024 Trump promise to rein in inflation and make everyday life affordable. This agenda got sidetracked by tariffs and the Iran war.

There is a role for targeted tariffs to protect certain industries and, in some cases, to level the playing field. However, across-the-board tariffs at extraordinary levels cannot be absorbed by the supply chain and shows up in higher prices for food, clothing, cars, building products—basically everything that impacts the everyday person. The only way to implement significant across-the-board tariffs would be to marry them with significant across-the-board tax cuts.

Then came the Iran war. Clearly, no one anticipated that 8 months later we would still be trading insults with the Iranians. Petroleum products, especially diesel prices, have skyrocketed, adding pricing pressure to freight for everyday products, gas for cars, prices for plastics, and other downstream petroleum products.

Uncontrolled Federal spending plus these inflationary impacts have spooked the bond market, causing interest rates for mortgages and consumer loans to reach highs not seen recently.

President Trump has not helped with the messaging. By far, his biggest achievements have been shutting a porous border and passing the big, beautiful tax bill that eliminated taxes on tips and overtime and extended prior tax cuts. You cannot have a sovereign nation without a strong border, and the President exceeded expectations with his quick actions on this front.

Inflation management and staying out of wars, which were his other promises, have not happened. He is also not reading the room on how citizens feel about data centers in their backyards and how states are increasingly starting to resent what they view as federal interference in picking their state representation.

Instead of focusing on specific successes, the messaging from Washington appears to be headlining issues that are not front and center for most everyday citizens—ballrooms, arches, Kennedy Center naming rights, banning news stations for perceived unfair coverage, etc.—which sucks the oxygen out of successes like borders and taxes.

Most voters, Republican and Democrat, are concerned about the crazy cost of food, gas, mortgages, uncontrolled government spending, data centers being forced into neighborhoods and farmland, and wars without a clear exit strategy. They want to know how the next 2 years are going to be better on these fronts.

A slow disconnect between what voters are focused on and what our Government is focused on is how we got to a place where the Democrats have a shot at taking over the Legislative branch. Perhaps, it is time to stop and go back to our Declaration of Independence to seek guidance. The Declaration is clear in articulating that our rights come from God. Government's job is to secure and protect those rights by ensuring that they (Government) have the consent of us (the governed). When we lose that connection, we lose our system of government.

*"ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS—THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN DERIVING THEIR POWER FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."*

09/23/2026

It is shocking to see the politicians jump on the diesel export ban. While the shock value of the ban may temporarily move the US market marginally lower, it will almost certainly cause the worldwide market to explode. Once reality hits in a week or two, there will be an explosion of pricing upward for diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, and heating oil in the US and the rest of the world. Below is a simple explanation that even our sound-bite politicians should be able to grasp.

Diesel is not a standalone refined product. Diesel and gasoline are produced simultaneously by hydrotreating and hydrocracking crude. They both start with crude oil. The difference is which slice of the barrel is used and how it is cooked. So, if diesel capacity is shut down, then gasoline capacity is also shut down. With that background, what happens with a diesel export ban?

Our refining and diesel capacity is almost entirely in the Gulf region. Let's start with the East Coast diesel needs. The big pipeline for transporting diesel is the Colonial Pipeline from the Gulf to New York Harbor. This pipeline does not go into northern New England. This pipeline is full currently and has almost no capacity.

From New York Harbor, product moves to Boston and other ports by barge. Jones Act rules make these US-flag barges scarce and expensive. Very little spare barge capacity exists today.

Therefore, New England also takes cargoes from Canada and Europe. In winter, that includes heating oil, which is the same middle-distillate family as diesel.

California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii are cut off from the Gulf by the Rockies, and there is no large, refined product pipeline to the West Coast. California's own refineries plus waterborne cargoes, often from Asia, supply this market.

Banning Gulf Coast exports will surely send the world diesel and heating oil market soaring. The problem is we cannot get this additional product to other parts of the US, as the ban does not create new pipelines or extra barges.

As an ex-oil person, what would I do if I was operating refining in the Gulf and I cannot export and I cannot get the product to other parts of the USA? I will put it in storage for a week or two, at which point I run out of storage and start shutting down capacity. When I shut down diesel capacity, I also shut down heating oil, jet fuel, and gasoline capacity in a market that is already supply-constrained. At that point, I have a man-made disaster with fuel prices.

These are not difficult concepts to understand, and it is astonishing to me that these politicians are so quick to get on TV and propose these poorly thought-out solutions to try to make voters feel like they are doing something. Don't fall for this. It will be a disastrous policy that will send all fuels into an upward spiral for us and the rest of the world. Not smart.

09/22/2026

We are reposting a piece from earlier this year about data centers because the issue it rearing its ugly head. Share your thoughts in the comments with us.

Why South Carolina Should Walk Away From Data Centers
Politicians don't know how to make deals
By Rom Reddy

Data centers have suddenly become a big issue in South Carolina. First, let me say I completely oppose them in SC especially given the leaders we have who do not understand how to make any reasonable deals. I also oppose federal mandates on what state should or should not do with data centers. A series of federal executive actions are pushing states toward certain regulatory frameworks, and as usual, politicians are lining up to comply without asking the most important question first - Is this constitutional?

First, data centers themselves. They do not create any level of meaningful jobs and consume vast amounts of power, water, and land. The politicians, including some of the candidates running for office, glibly say what their consultants told them to since none of them have any current governing skills. They say they will get the data centers to pay for the power and water. What they do not say is that the state system is a generic cost-plus system that is not set up to manage power generation and distribution capacity to specific locations. The power companies simply say we need more power; they spend the money for power generation and distribution, add their mark up and pass it on to us with higher rates. If you say that the capacity expansion was for the data center, they will argue it was not, and it was a generic power expansion. Remember the nuclear project of $ 10 billion dollar plus disaster that was attributed to Santee Cooper. No one got assigned the blame. They just write it off with higher rates to us. So do not buy their 45 second talking points. They always talk about slick policy but do not know how to get anything done.

Then you have the ruling class's disastrous deal making skills. They absolutely have never done deals with their money and now think they can do deals with our money. They do not understand risk. They do not understand leverage. They do not understand long term cost vs short term press releases. The disasters with Scout motors, battery plants, solar panel plants and data centers should be a grim warning to not trust making more bad deals with our money. If these were private sector deals, they would all be fired. Terrible terms. Disproportionate risk. Any deals with data centers will be a disaster. Don't let them do it. We will end up holding the bag and paying the price for their addiction to OPM ( other people's money)

Under the Tenth Amendment, states retain sovereignty over matters not explicitly granted to the federal government. Yet what we keep seeing is state leaders bending the knee to federal pressure, adopting federal direction as if it were law, and setting dangerous precedent in the process.

You may like the current president. You may believe he is doing a good job. I do. I gave him a seven figure donation. That is not the point. What happens when the next president is someone like Gavin Newsom? Are you prepared to take direction then? If you have already surrendered state authority, you will not get to choose when to resist. That is why state sovereignty must be defended at all times, not just when it is politically convenient

For that reason alone, I oppose federally driven mandates around data centers. South Carolina should assert its Tenth Amendment rights and make its own decisions and resist all attempts at federal mandates with data centers.

South Carolina is not in a position to gamble on projects it does not understand, negotiated by people who cannot negotiate, under pressure from a federal government that has no constitutional authority to dictate these decisions.

This is how states get into trouble. Slowly. Quietly. One bad precedent at a time.

The smart move is simple. Walk away.

Reassert state sovereignty. Protect taxpayers. Stop chasing shiny objects. And demand leadership that understands the Constitution, understands economics, and understands that not every deal is a good deal.

09/17/2026

THE EVOLUTION OF THE PALMETTO REVOLUTION

On June 9, 2026, we came within a 28k vote swing (or 6 percent of those who voted) from making the gubernatorial runoff and creating a true Palmetto Revolution. I have always believed everything happens for a reason, and I am at peace with the outcome. However, that has not stopped many of you from asking an important question—is this the end of the road for the Palmetto Revolution that so many of you were enthused about? The answer is no. We cannot give up.

First, a walk down memory lane. What is the Palmetto Revolution all about? The Revolution simply said that on our 250th anniversary, it was time to return to the principles of the Declaration. Our rights come from God. Our Founders intended our system of government to be one where Government "secures" or protects these rights on our behalf—not a Government that rules over us by taking more of our money and increasingly controlling our lives.

Today, we are suffocated by a corrupt and all-powerful government at all levels. The Revolution must start at the state level and then progress to the local level by returning money and power to the citizen so a citizen can gain control over their lives.

The Palmetto Revolution called for massively shrinking the administrative state by 50 percent or greater and returning the money to the citizen; massively shrinking the size of local government and slashing property tax rates, including a phase-out of property tax for seniors who have owned their home for more than 10 years and an elimination of property taxes on autos; judicial reform where judges are not selected by lawyer legislators; reform of the family court that destroys both parents and children; and an elimination of dark money donations by modifying some of the worst donation disclosure rules in the nation.

On the positive side, The Revolution sees a role for government in fixing our broken K-12 education system and fixing our roads using modern management practices instead of throwing money at these problems and hoping they go away.

As ambitious as it sounds, I honestly and sincerely believe all this is substantially achievable, but only if we can energize the grassroots. Between a Presidential endorsement and massive amounts of money that went into a smear campaign, I ran out of runway to energize the grassroots through the election process. So, we must go back to a slower and perhaps more difficult path, which is a grassroots revolution to restore our founding principles. South Carolina did this once before, and we can do so again.

The first step will be the formation of the Palmetto Revolution PAC that will support candidates who adhere to the principles we espouse. To that extent, I would like you to send your thoughts on the above principles to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]). Please share your thoughts freely on whether you agree with the Revolution agenda in general, as discussed in the previous paragraphs. You do not have to agree, but be respectful and constructive in your disagreements.

We will then finalize the principles of the revolution and launch the PAC with a major fundraising initiative base loaded by my family. As you all know, the Supreme Court ruled that all PACs are legal and citizens or corporations are allowed to use them to spread their message under the First Amendment.

They left disclosure of PAC sources up to the states, and SC chose not to have disclosure. However, we will voluntarily self-disclose. All sources and uses of the funds will be made 100 percent transparent on our website, and a special newsletter on activities will go out periodically to all donors, small or large. Getting the right people into government and the wrong people out will be an essential step to achieving our goals, and this cannot be done without funding.

The next step will be developing a media platform statewide. Given the diversity of the state, it may mean 3 or 4 media hubs throughout the state with a mixture of podcasts, radio, TV, digital, and newsfeed. This will likely need to be achieved by a combination of grassroots startups and acquisitions, so we have a voice. We cannot rely on the existing bought and paid media sources to amplify our message.

Our core media platform will be free, with a premium platform open to subscribers only. The subscription will be 7 or 8 dollars per month but will give subscribers much more content, access to weekly or bi-weekly town hall-type questions and answers with me and special guests, ability to call into shows, and regular news feeds. We will also give founding subscribers a rate guarantee for 3 years. We hope you will support such efforts, as it is critical to us gaining a voice in the state.

So, for all you patriots out there that have been and will be victimized by a corrupt establishment, do not give up. Help may be slow in coming, but it is coming. A revolution is way overdue, and why not have South Carolina lead the way again!

09/14/2026

Before you all start sending me hate mail, let me say that I am all for giving S.C. taxpayers relief from these soaring prices, but not through a gas tax suspension.

I must disagree with AG Wilson and others who are calling for a gas tax suspension, and I must further disagree with giving the Governor unilateral authority on gas or any other tax, as it violates the constitutional separation of powers.

As a businessman and ExxonMobil alumnus who believes the state should be run like a business, there are better alternatives for helping the citizen responsibly.

In the last fiscal year, the gas tax brought in roughly 1 billion dollars for the year, that is mostly allocated for infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges in the state.

About one third of this billion dollars is paid by out-of-state individuals (and truckers), per the S.C. Department of Revenue. So a 120-day suspension will result in a 300 million dollar revenue loss for the state: about 100 million of this will go to out-of-state entities and 200 million to S.C. taxpayers. Makes no sense.

Second, this tax suspension does not go directly to the taxpayer but must go through the retailer or gas station owner. The retailer or gas station owner no longer has to remit the 28-cent gas tax to the state. There is no requirement, however, for the retailer to pass the full amount of the reduction to the customer. In an environment of rapidly rising prices, the retailer can simply claim that the gas tax decrease was offset by higher gas prices. Last night, for example, gas price futures rose by 12 cents in one night.

Only a portion of the gas tax savings will likely get passed on to the consumer, and the state has no way to monitor this.

Last but not least, how does the suspension end? On the 120th day, you can rest assured the retailer will raise prices by 28 cents even if he did not go down by 28 cents. What if gas prices are still high? Will we have the political will to reinstate the gas tax, or will we continue to cut off funding for the roads?

In other words, we have the very real danger of tying the future of our roads to the future of the Straits of Hormuz or whatever geopolitical event that keeps oil high.

Our politicians say: don't worry about road funding, we will take it out of the surplus. Well, here's an idea. Why don't you just rebate the surplus to the taxpayer right now? That way you are not giving a big break to out-of-state drivers, and you are not risking the retailer not passing the lower taxes to the consumer fully. The taxpayer will see the full $300 million benefit immediately, and the rebate all stays in state.

Most of our politicians have never run anything and are addicted to OPM (other people's money). The gas tax suspension is a half-baked idea that will subsidize out-of-state drivers heavily, pad retailer profits, not fully help S.C. citizens, and not have a good exit strategy. Long term, it risks damaging our already disastrous roads. Stop the madness and rebate the surpluses directly if you are serious about helping.

Rom Reddy

09/12/2026

If you are receiving property tax bills for your home or cars for this year, you know that things are out of control. Just know that this problem cannot be fixed with happy talk. LOCAL SPENDING MUST BE CUT DRAMATICALLY or state support for municipalities must be threatened.

A massive drop in revenue is potentially looming for the Sunshine State’s cities and counties.

09/04/2026

It’s Free Speech Friday, and we want to hear from YOU.

This week, we’re talking about South Carolina’s Family Court system.

If you or someone you love has been through the Family Court system, what was your experience? What worked? What didn’t? Where did you feel the system failed families, and what do you believe needs to change?

Whether your experience involved custody, divorce, child support, DSS, guardianship, or another Family Court matter, we want to hear your story.

Share your experience in the comments. You never know how many other South Carolinians have been through something similar.

Real reform starts by listening to the people who have lived it.

Free Speech Friday. Let’s talk about it.

09/02/2026

Ralph Norman posted this about an hour ago. Thank you, Ralph.

09/02/2026

Folks, I watch the train wreck developing in South Carolina in the aftermath of the recent Senate runoff, and I say PLEASE STOP.

It is perfectly OK to have a primary battle to pick the Republican horse. The battle is over. Whether people like it or not, Darline is the Republican horse that will race against the far-left Democratic horse Annie Andrews in November. Darline won the popular vote by 5 points and won almost 75 percent of the counties.

At the Presidential level, that would mean winning the nationwide popular vote by 5 points and winning 75 percent of the states. I don't know if that has happened since the Ronald Reagan days.

As many of you know, I have been transparent about not being a fan of Ralph, having competed with him in the gubernatorial race. He is the only one I had to send a cease-and-desist order to in order to stop lying. He has not sponsored, co-sponsored, fought for, and PASSED a single conservative bill in 20 years. Much of the talk centers around submitting legislation that fails or opposing legislation to gain personal power, as Representative Timmons, his colleague, eloquently explained. That is history.

However, what he is doing now is next level. To publicly address the media and say "Vote for Norman" in November after he lost the runoff is a moral and legal disgrace. Emphasizes why we maybe dodged a bullet in not having someone so arrogant trying to cling to power after 20 years and not caring if he violates the law and his pledge.

In the process, Ralph attacks the President for getting involved in South Carolina elections, which I agree with. However, how does that match up with Ralph calling the President prior to the primary and asking for Trump's endorsement himself?

First, the moral piece. Ralph, you lost 2 statewide races. The voters are not buying your outsider message, given you have been in politics for 25 years. Be graceful and support your Republican nominee. Anything else splits the vote and hands the Senate seat to Annie Andrews. Ridiculous that Norman and his vocal supporters would even think of doing this to this state and our country.

Second, you are violating state law. Pasted below is a summary of what the SC statute says.

**Under S.C. Code § 7-11-210, every candidate seeking a party nomination for state office, United States Senator, member of Congress, or solicitor must file a signed party pledge with the election commission. The required language is the same for governor and Senate. The candidate pledges to:**

**• affiliate with the party**

**• abide by the results of the primary or convention**

**• not put their name on the general-election ballot by petition**

**• not run or campaign as a write-in against the party's nominee**

**The statute also authorizes an injunction if they violate that pledge. Filing it is part of qualifying for the primary ballot.**

**That applied to the June 9 regular Senate primary (when Lindsey Graham was the incumbent) and to the special Republican primary after his death (August 11 primary, August 25 runoff). Special-election filers still had to submit the notice of candidacy and party pledge.**

**What the pledge does not do is require you to campaign for, endorse, or raise money for whoever wins. It is mainly a no-bolt/no-spoiler pledge after the nomination is settled.**

Ralph, you read and signed this document twice in the last few months when you ran for Governor and lost and then ran for Senate and lost. What part of this is not clear to you? What you are doing as a sitting US Representative is openly violating South Carolina law. Typical of career politicians who think: *rules are for thee, not for me.*

Maybe AG Wilson or Drew McKissick, as party chairman, should discuss this matter and pursue charges against Ralph and news outlets like FITS and other leaders who appear to amplify this message without a counterpoint that it involves breaking state law. Alan, as you know, while I am not required to endorse you or anyone else during the primary (so the voter can think for themselves), I agreed to support you as the Republican nominee and have donated to your campaign. Ralph endorsing you during the primary should not buy him immunity against breaking the law.

Stop this childish nonsense. Go out gracefully and show you have some leadership and humility. Immediately and publicly, tell all these write-in warriors to back off because it is morally and legally wrong.