Hostile takeover

Hostile takeover: Investopedia

The idea here is to take the current events in the country and compare it somehow with the term used in the business sphere. A hostile takeover is legal, though. What is going on now, in this country, isn't legal. A better term would be COUP.

In the business sphere, a hostile takeover occurs when management is opposed to an acquistion. They'll fight it one way or another, sometimes winning, other times losing. The result is a change in management, if the takeover is successful.

But a coup is illegal. There's nothing illegal about changing the management of a company, but a fundamental restructuring of a entire government is usually not legal. The adoption of the US Constitution was such a case where it was legal, and no revolution nor coup was necessary in the restructuring of the US government.

The current makeup of the "leadership" class does not seem to like its people very much. It continually lies to the public and does things that are harmful to the interests of the people in the country. The invitation of unlimited numbers of foreign-born people while at the same time introducing a gain-in-function virus, for which adequate treatment exists; but is being REFUSED, suggests a population-replacement strategy meant to preserve their existence in power.

There is a "hostile takeover" in a sense. But there's nothing legal going on here. If there was any justice, which is another example of this failing state, we'd have a fifty-state forensic audit, and an impeachment trial for a President who has just committed a heinous crime. But this latest crime in Afghanistan is but one example of a series of crimes against the country. There can be no solution that should allow these people to continue to govern. The Constitution does provide a remedy, but will the public take advantage of this in time to save itself?

The Federal government is out of control. The states should dissolve the Federal Government by Constitution convention and restart the damned thing.