It's becoming increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction, and unfortunately the media has a strong bias. They spin stories to make conservatives look bad and will go to great lengths to avoid reporting on the good that comes from conservative policies. There are a few shining lights in the media landscape-brave conservative outlets that report the truth and offer a different perspective. We must support conservative outlets like this one and ensure that our voices are heard.
Wednesday, October 7, 2026
The Supply Chain Question: Made in America Does Not Necessarily Mean Made Entirely in America
By Staff
There is another question that deserves to be separated from the broader arguments about Dominion, Fox and the 2020 election. Where, exactly, are the individual components inside voting systems manufactured?
This is not a hypothetical question.
Americans sometimes hear that voting machines are "American made" and reasonably assume that this means the chips, processors, memory, firmware components and other critical electronics inside those machines are also manufactured in the United States.
The federal record is more complicated.
In congressional testimony concerning election equipment, industry representatives acknowledged that certain components used in voting equipment are manufactured outside the United States. One witness testified that "most of the voting equipment does use sources from outside the country," while discussing the possibility of reshoring more of the supply chain. The witness also distinguished between requiring U.S. assembly and completely reshoring the components themselves.
That distinction matters.
A voting system can be assembled, configured and tested in the United States while still containing commercially available electronic components manufactured elsewhere.
Nor does federal "Buy American" law automatically mean that every component inside a government purchased electronic product must be American made. Federal acquisition rules define a "domestic end product" using a manufacturing and domestic content test, while also providing specific treatment for commercially available off the shelf products. The legal definition of a U.S. made end product and the country of origin of every individual component are therefore not necessarily the same thing.
This does not establish that any foreign made component in a voting machine is compromised.
It does establish something much narrower and more important.
"American made voting machine" is not necessarily synonymous with "every critical electronic component was manufactured in America."
That creates a legitimate supply chain security question.
The question is not whether a chip manufactured overseas is automatically malicious. That would be an unsupported conclusion.
The question is whether the election security system has adequate safeguards against the possibility that a critical component, firmware image or other piece of the supply chain could be counterfeit, tampered with or otherwise compromised before it reaches the United States.
The federal government itself recognizes supply chain security as an election security issue. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has identified risks involving election equipment supply chains and recommended measures including identifying supply chain risks, protecting against counterfeit or tampered components, and maintaining the integrity of third party hardware and firmware.
That concern also helps explain why certification cannot reasonably be treated as synonymous with perfection.
The Election Assistance Commission's certification program tests specific voting system configurations against applicable federal standards through accredited laboratories. Its Quality Monitoring Program is designed to help ensure that the systems certified by the EAC are the same systems sold by manufacturers and includes fielded system reviews, anomaly reporting and manufacturing site visits.
Those are meaningful safeguards.
But certification primarily establishes that a particular system configuration has undergone the prescribed testing. It does not mean that every semiconductor inside that system has been independently manufactured in the United States or that every possible hardware level supply chain attack has been mathematically eliminated.
That distinction is especially important when discussing processors, boot components, memory and other electronics that sit beneath the voting application itself.
A malicious change to ordinary application software is one problem.
A malicious modification to the underlying hardware or firmware would be a different class of problem.
That does not mean such a modification occurred.
There is no evidence presented here that a foreign manufactured semiconductor inside a Dominion system was deliberately altered to manipulate the 2020 election.
That claim would require evidence.
It would require identifying the specific machine and component, establishing the component's provenance, demonstrating the alleged modification, showing how the modification affected the system and then connecting that mechanism to actual votes.
Without that chain of evidence, the allegation remains speculation.
But the opposite claim that certification makes such questions illegitimate is also too broad.
Government testing laboratories can miss software defects. Certified systems can contain coding errors. Manufacturers can issue corrections. Supply chains can contain vulnerabilities. The EAC's own investigation of the Williamson County, Tennessee incident demonstrates that certification does not make software infallible.
The appropriate conclusion is therefore neither panic nor complacency.
It is verification.
If critical election components are manufactured overseas, Americans should be able to ask reasonable questions about their provenance and security.
Where was the component manufactured?
Who manufactured it?
Who supplied it?
What firmware does it contain?
Was the component inspected or authenticated when it entered the United States?
Was the production version compared with the tested version?
Were the relevant hashes or signatures verified?
Who had physical access to it?
And most importantly, what independent evidence exists outside the machine itself that would reveal an attempt to alter votes?
Those are not conspiracy theory questions.
They are ordinary supply chain-security questions.
But they must remain questions until the evidence answers them.
The same evidentiary standard that should be applied to Fox, Dominion, election officials and government agencies must also be applied here.
A foreign component is not proof of foreign control.
A vulnerability is not proof of exploitation.
A software defect is not proof of election fraud.
And American assembly is not proof that every component originated in America.
The responsible position lies between those extremes.
Don't confuse foreign manufacture with compromise. But don't confuse American assembly with complete supply chain independence, either.
The same principle applies to the hardware supply chain. The existence of foreign manufactured components does not prove that an election was compromised. But the fact that a machine is assembled and certified in the United States does not, by itself, establish that every component inside it was manufactured domestically or that every possible supply chain risk has been eliminated. Those are questions that should be answered with component level documentation and testing, not assumptions.
Sources:
Election system certification
U.S. Election Assistance Commission — Certified Voting Systems
Shows the systems that have received EAC certification, the manufacturer, testing standard, and certification date. EAC: Certified Voting Systems citeturn0search0
U.S. Election Assistance Commission — System Certification Process
Explains that the EAC certification program tests and certifies hardware and software through accredited testing laboratories. EAC: System Certification Process citeturn0search6
U.S. Election Assistance Commission — Voting Systems Under Test
Useful for showing that certification applies to particular systems/configurations undergoing testing against specified federal standards. EAC: Voting Systems Under Test citeturn0search8
EAC — Are Voting Systems Secure?
Discusses security controls including testing, tamper-evident seals, access controls and audits. EAC: Are Voting Systems Secure? citeturn0search11
Foreign components / supply-chain issue
This is probably the most important source for the point you're making.
Congressional hearing — election equipment manufacturing/supply chain
This is the congressional record containing testimony discussing the fact that voting equipment can contain components manufactured outside the United States and the distinction between U.S. assembly and completely domestic sourcing. Congressional Record: Election Equipment Supply Chain Hearing
I'd be careful with the article's wording here. The source supports foreign-sourced components in voting equipment; it does not by itself establish that a particular Dominion processor came from China or Taiwan.
Federal “Buy American” rules
Federal Acquisition Regulation — FAR 25.101
This is the primary federal regulation explaining the definition of a domestic end product. It says manufactured end products generally have a U.S.-manufacturing requirement plus a domestic-content test, while also addressing exceptions such as COTS products. FAR 25.101 — General citeturn0search2
FAR 25.001 — General
Particularly useful because it explicitly distinguishes the test for the country of origin of an end product from the origin of its components. FAR 25.001 — General citeturn0search12
That is the source I'd use to support the article's important distinction:
U.S.-manufactured end product ≠ necessarily every component manufactured in the United States.
Election hardware supply-chain security
CISA — Supply Chain Risks to Election Infrastructure
This is particularly strong for your article because it explicitly says election systems contain hardware components that are part of a complex, globally connected supply chain. CISA recommends identifying supply-chain touchpoints, prioritizing critical hardware, protecting against counterfeiting/tampering, physically inspecting components, and continuously checking the integrity of third-party firmware. CISA: Supply Chain Risks to Election Infrastructure CCISA
CISA — Supply Chain Risks to Election Infrastructure infographic page
The landing page for the CISA publication. CISA: Election Infrastructure Supply Chain Risk Resources CCISA
EAC — Certified Voting Systems EAC Certified Voting Systems
EAC — System Certification Process EAC System Certification Process
CISA — Supply Chain Risks to Election Infrastructure CISA Supply Chain Risks
Congressional hearing on election-equipment manufacturing/supply chain Congressional Hearing / Election Equipment Supply Chain
FAR 25.101 as the legal source for the distinction between a domestically manufactured end product and the origin of individual components. FAR 25.101
How Obama’s DNI Became a CCP Sellout.
Dennis Blair, who served as Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence (DNI), has been associated with various Chinese organizations linked to military intelligence and influence operations. This summary explores his participation in events with these groups, highlighting his potential compromise of U.S. national interests.
1. Connections to Chinese Organizations:
Blair led U.S. delegations to the China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC), which the U.S. Congress identified as a front for the Chinese military involved in intelligence gathering and propaganda.
His presence lent credibility to CAIFC, which used his former position in its promotions.
2. Meetings with Influence-Linked Groups:
In March 2011, Blair participated in talks hosted by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), another group flagged for involvement in influence operations.
CUSEF was founded by a Chinese official linked to the Communist Party’s unified front work, emphasizing its aim to influence U.S. relations.
3. Engagement with Intelligence-Affiliated Institutions:
Blair attended dialogues with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, connected to China's intelligence services, demonstrating the extent of his involvement with organizations linked to espionage.
4. Discussions on Technology and Economic Cooperation:
He led discussions aimed at easing restrictions on American technologies like semiconductors and promoting cooperation in renewable energy, despite the organizations involved having histories of government coercion and surveillance.
5. Collaboration with Military Figures:
Blair interacted with major generals from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and other Chinese officials in strategic security dialogues, continuing this pattern over several years.
6. Proposals for American Infrastructure and Technology:
Recent dialogues have suggested using Chinese technology, including batteries and AI, in U.S. infrastructure, which raises national security concerns given the associations of the Chinese partners involved.
7. Impact on U.S.-China Relations:
Blair’s involvement likely softens the critical posture of U.S. policies toward China by lending a reputable voice to arguments favorable to Beijing, a tactic noted in U.S. reviews of Chinese influence operations.
Dennis Blair’s extensive engagement with Chinese organizations linked to military and intelligence networks raises significant concerns regarding U.S. national security. His participation allows these organizations to bolster their credibility while promoting perspectives that may not align with U.S. interests. The implications of such associations illustrate a complex landscape of international relations, where former officials can unwittingly support foreign agendas.
Paramount Closes $81 Billion Warner Bros. Discovery Takeover — CNN, CBS, HBO and Warner Bros. Now Under Right-Leaning Billionaire Family
On October 6, 2026, Paramount completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, creating a massive media company valued at approximately $111 billion, which will operate under the name Skydance. This merger has significant implications for popular media outlets such as CNN, CBS, HBO, and Warner Bros., as they now come under the influence of conservative ownership.
Ownership and Leadership: The new company, Skydance, is led by David Ellison, the founder of Skydance, along with co-CEO Ynon Kreiz. The Ellison family, prominent conservative supporters, holds complete voting control of the company alongside RedBird Capital Partners.
Significance of the Merger: This merger is noted as a turning point as conservative interests now wield influence over prominent media networks that have historically been viewed as liberal. David Ellison expressed excitement about combining the two companies to enhance storytelling and competition in the industry.
Political Background: Larry Ellison, David's father and Oracle co-founder, is a noted supporter of former President Donald Trump, having made significant financial contributions to Republican campaigns and initiatives. David Ellison also contributed to the Biden Victory Fund in early 2024.
Regulatory Challenges: The merger faced opposition from California's Attorney General and a temporary restraining order was issued, which resulted in a settlement requiring oversight measures for editorial independence at CNN and CBS. This includes maintaining studio operations and setting up an editorial board.
Response of Media Staff: Reports suggest a tense atmosphere within CNN leading up to the merger's completion, as many staff members expressed concern over the change in ownership dynamics and the potential loss of editorial freedom.
Future Considerations: While the merger promises new opportunities, there are questions about how the newly formed media conglomerate will handle its political connections and the expectations of its diverse audience. The settlement restrictions aim to ensure that influential media does not shift too drastically towards conservative biases.
The acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount marks a significant shift in the media landscape, with implications for public perception of mainstream news and its political affiliations. Under conservative leadership, the operation is expected to change the narrative and operational dynamics of major networks. Observers will be keenly watching how these changes unfold and impact journalism in the future.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/10/its-official-paramount-closes-81-billion-warner-bros/
The DSA Agenda Will Exacerbate the Affordability Crisis
A recent Harris poll reveals that 95% of American adults believe the country is facing an affordability crisis due to rising costs in various sectors, including housing, healthcare, and education. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) aims to address these concerns by advocating for a democratic socialist republic.
Public Concerns: Many Americans struggle with balancing their budgets as prices rise in essential areas.
DSA's Agenda: The DSA promotes the “Workers Deserve More Program,” pushing for policies such as universal healthcare, free education, and paid family leave.
Political Landscape: The DSA is gaining political influence, running numerous candidates and holding political offices within the Democratic Party, which it criticizes for failing to tackle issues related to capitalism.
Youth Appeal: The DSA's ideas resonate with younger Americans, who often view capitalism negatively due to their education.
Critique of Current Education: There are concerns that American public schools do not adequately teach about capitalism and tend to promote collectivist ideas.
Call for Balanced Discussion: There is a need for clear arguments defending free enterprise and explaining how it contributes to societal well-being.
While frustrations with rising costs are valid, attributing these issues solely to free enterprise overlooks government interventions that have distorted markets. The DSA's proposed solutions could lead to severe economic consequences, reminiscent of historical socialism crises marked by shortages and rationing.
The Left Doesn’t Count Votes. It Finds Them.
The New York Times' reporting of the Brazilian election, particularly the approach taken by leftist parties towards electoral processes. The article argues that the prevailing perception showcases a troubling shift in political behavior and psychology regarding how elections should function.
Election Dynamics: The New York Times reported that the left views elections not merely as a contest of votes but as an opportunity to "find" votes through manipulation to achieve desired outcomes.
Manufacturing Votes: The left is accused of believing they have a duty to produce enough votes to counter electoral deficits instead of focusing on genuine voter turnout.
Perception of Elections: Elections have shifted from a fair contest between candidates to an orchestrated event where one side manipulates results to maintain power, effectively redefining the traditional electoral process.
Analogy of Manipulation: The commentary likens the left's electoral tactics to athletes being illegally enhanced or jurors being swayed during deliberation. Both scenarios illustrate a breach of the fair play expected in elections and legal proceedings.
Impact of Political Corruption: The article notes that many South American countries have struggled due to leftist corruption, with a lack of moderate or conservative leadership hindering economic progress.
Global Ambitions of Election Fraud: It posits that the left's wrongful practices in electoral processes reflect a broader, dangerous ambition on a global scale, and that true elections should involve real voters and fair processes.
Paranoia of the Left: The left is suggested to view conservative candidates as part of an overarching conspiracy—specifically linking them to former President Trump, which fosters a sense of insecurity and both aims to normalize election misconduct.
The commentary critiques how the left rationalizes manipulation in electoral processes, transforming fundamental democratic principles. The author aptly warns against these developments, suggesting that genuine electoral integrity is critical for democracy, and calls for an awareness of these tactics as a broader pattern in political behavior.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/10/the-left-doesn-t-count-votes-it-finds-them/
Jack Smith’s Twisting Of Justice Makes The Case For Anti-Weaponization Fund
Recent revelations from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley highlight serious misconduct in former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation, alleged to be a politically motivated effort targeting former President Donald Trump. These findings suggest a need for a fund to support victims affected by the misuse of the justice system.
1. Abuse of Power: Documents reveal that Jack Smith’s investigation involved unauthorized access to communications from 17 news outlets, including The Federalist, and nearly 50 journalists. Grassley labeled Smith's operation as a "runaway political train" violating constitutional protections.
2. Subpoenas and Spying: Smith's team sought subpoenas for 5,000 checks linked to Trump donors and secretly seized text messages from over 40 Congressional members, implicating even Senators like Grassley and Marsha Blackburn.
3. Claims of Unconstitutionality: Blackburn has filed a lawsuit against Smith for unlawfully accessing her cell phone records and failing to inform a judge about targeting a sitting senator. Federal rulings have criticized Smith's appointment, suggesting it was unconstitutional.
4. Impact on Journalism: The Federalist’s co-founder, Sean Davis, expressed distress over the violation of journalistic privacy, raising concerns about the extent of the investigation's reach into reporters' communications. The Federalist is reviewing legal options regarding the breaches.
5. Calls for Restitution: Davis argues for an anti-weaponization fund to support victims of federal prosecutorial abuse, citing political pressure that halted previous discussions on such a fund. He emphasizes that individuals oppressed by the government deserve compensation.
The discoveries surrounding the Arctic Frost investigation indicate significant overreach by Smith and his team, potentially politicizing the justice system. Calls for a restitution fund highlight the broader implications for victims affected by prosecutorial misconduct. The need for accountability and protections against such abuses is becoming increasingly urgent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
