I was just searching for some reference material and I discovered this article from October last year:-
"Publicly-held corporations know to keep profits low and cash-on-hand at an absolute minimum.
Why? Because if there is a nice cash profit each year or there is a lot of cash in the company’s coffers, they become a prime target for what is called a hostile corporate takeover.
You see, all that cash sitting around and cash income becomes a target that is too inviting to pass up. And so predators undertake hostile takeovers, purchasing a majority share – against the will of the current ownership – of the company’s stock. They do this by offering an excessively high price for the shares, and so get enough small stock holders to sell out, giving them a majority share."
<snip>
Now, look at what Bush/Cheney and company did.
The nation had a surplus – a lot of money sitting around in the company’s coffers. It also had a high profit – excess tax revenues over expenditures.
So, they decided to try and take over the company (i.e. American corporation) so that they could loot the coffers, line their pockets, exploit any other assets that might bring them profits, leaving the country but a skeleton of what it was.
It was no secret. George Bush said himself during the debates three different times that the President was a “Chief Executive Officer,” and that he was qualified because he had experience in different capacities as a CEO.
<snip>
More at the moderate Independent:-
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i13takeover.htmI found this a very plausible explanation of the stolen election. As a non American (UK) I would like to know if this is still plausible from a US perspective.