In previous episodes of corporatism this year, Congress passed unconstitutional legislation allegedly meant to "rescue" the major financiers of their election campaigns. Which was tyrannical enough. But this time around, President Bush has issued a word-of-mouth mandate, as if it was set in stone. He has taken it upon himself to extract the loot from the rest of us in order that the most pathetic failures of the automotive industry won't have to pay their just dues for their egregious business failures.
Never mind that a hands-off approach by the federal government — allowing companies to file bankruptcy and liquidate their assets — is the only moral, legal, and practical avenue to take for the sake of "the American people" for whom Bush is constantly feigning concern. Never mind that executive absolutism, and government control and ownership of industry, are the modus operandi of the most tyrannical and anti-American regimes in contemporary history.
As of yet, the official means, much less the legal authority, by which His Eminence shall enact His Edict, is unclear; nevertheless, as of December 19, 2008, fascism has manifest itself in a way unmatched in domestic American affairs since the FDR years. Perhaps worse. Back then, only a few proponents of industry nationalization cheer-led their nefarious political and economic schemes publicly and in no uncertain terms, and, for the most part, got what they desired. Still, some of their schemes were later ruled unconstitutional and subsequently repealed. Now, there are innumerable public figures pushing loudly and proudly for central ownership of life, liberty, and property — and getting it. Now, there isn't even an inkling of a gold standard to restrain the federal government from endlessly looting taxpayers to finance the monstrous Ponzi schemes via inflation of the money supply. Now, the U.S. empire is global, and its military dominance is typically enough to persuade any other government out there from treating the dying U.S. dollar as anything less than the world's reserve currency (or rather, "good as gold," to put it in the most darkly-ironic of ways).
And there is virtually no chance that these unconstitutional programs will be struck down, because today's federal government is even less-inclined to brand itself unconstitutional than it was in FDR's era. The Supreme Court is 9-of-9 in ideological support of Leviathan statism. There are no checks on the abuse of power because there is no incentive. Self-enrichment of all branches of the federal government is common as the sunrise.
Furthermore, the public proponents of national-socialism greatly outnumber those against. And those in favor most notably include the most prolific cheer-leaders for centralized tyranny in general and executive absolutism, in particular: the unbiased, objective, and balanced "mainstream" (corporate-statist) news media.
Too bad that that self-styled objectivity comes in the form of two "opposing" sides of a purported "debate," merely disagreeing on the means to their mutually-desired end.
Too bad that when you Google "constitution"+"automakers"+"Associated Press" the only few items you get are the ones marginalizing someone's, or some group's, opposition to the fascism on constitutional grounds. Too bad the word Constitution is used in the most dismissive, fleeting, and fraudulent of ways — if at all. 
(Typical example: Congressman Ron Paul . . . believes the Constitution doesn't give the government the authority. It is therefore "unconstitutional" and "immoral," in the view of the 11-term, conservative Republican, who is often criticized for putting earmarks into legislation he ends up voting against anyway.)
Too bad the focus is then shifted right back to that "objectivity" — that contrived "balance" — from two or more statist vultures of a feather.
Too bad the same officials-of-prey — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and their "bi-partisan" policies to which major media give 90–100% of inches, airtime, and throughput — were elected by most of the very people being plundered to prop up failed businesses and pay for partial government ownership thereof; were elected by most of the same productive individuals who are being robbed at the point of a gun to reward economic destruction, failure, and criminality; were elected by most of the same 60–95% of constituents in any given district, in any given state, who flooded the emails, voice mails, and offices of their representatives [sic] and senators [sic], supplicating them to strike down the immoral and unconstitutional $700, $300, or whatever billion dollar, financial- and bank-industry bailouts [sic] and nationalizations (one of which being passed, doubly-unconstitutionally, by its originating in the Senate); were elected by most of the same people being told that it's all for their own good — that the economic destruction is necessary and proper, like some kind of "tough love" — when it turns out to be nothing short of a sadistic enrichment for politicians, lobbyists, ideologues, and other statists and state sycophants.
All of this would be called intellectual, economic, and political rape by its real name. And to be sure, it happens with the tacit approval of those voting the criminals into office. More ominously and effectively, though, it comes about via the assistance of the shameless corporatist news media.
For them, it boils down to the simple choice between defending the people ("speaking truth to power") or concealing the crimes of the State. They have the luxury of choosing between right and wrong. The people, on the other hand, have to choose from among the ethically-anemic and generally unfit array of candidates that were practically media-selected. When individuals vote, they are voting for or against the same lesser- or more-evil candidates that were propped up and virtually nominated by the indomitable corporatist media and their cronies in think tanks [sic] and lobbying [sic] organizations.
The latest wholesale, across-the-board sell-out by major media is long past being just some "trend": it is a clear example of corporatist enterprises acting in their own interests. When Tyrant-elect Barack Obama's term becomes official, there's a good chance that the Fairness [sic] Doctrine will be re-shanked into society. If so, one of the greatest beneficiaries of that Orwellianly named absolutism will be The Associated Press and its largest member outlets like the New York Times. Meanwhile, the American people in general will suffer, as real journalists and outlets (esp. the anti-state variety) will struggle to get a word in edgewise in so-called public forums. (Surely, you might say, it couldn't possibly get any worse than it has been!) It will doubtless be all Dem v. Rep and lib v con, and no central tyranny v. individual liberty, or minimal government v. Leviathan.
And more than ever, the national-socialism will thrive and expand like wildfire, sucking the life, liberty, and property, like oxygen, out of non-conforming individuals and groups. And the viral growth of central tyranny will be irreversible (save, perhaps, for the valiant yet likely doomed efforts of those who "keep their powder dry"). And the ugliest and most brutal form of the "democracy" so shunned by the Founders will have permanently permeated the same land where, some 235 years ago, individuals voluntarily assembled in defense of life, liberty, and property, thus commencing the shaking-off the same central tyranny.
God help us.
- - - - - See AP's "Keep your cash: SC governor rails against bailouts" (google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jnxMBzHKZu5u74KV7d_k2aSk5IHwD954MVRG0) for a recent example, wherein South Carolina governor, Mark Sanford, is subtly marginalized for his constitutional resistance to industry bailouts. Of course you wouldn't know that the United States Constitution has anything to do with it. The word constitution is found once in the report, thus: "Sanford . . . requires his sons to memorize a family constitution . . ." And after several more paragraphs of uncontested pro-fascism testimonials, which blame the state government and exonerate the more-ominous federal government, Sanford's ethical stance on the role of the federal government is repeatedly passed of as being merely ideological, thus:
End of report. That last testimonial may seem to be neutral, detached, or even sympathetic; but, note the omission of the more relevant constitutional stance Sanford is taking; the refusal to discuss legality of the policy he is opposing; and the use of the double-adjective modifier absolute ideological. Neocon policies are "absolute ideological," as were those of the Nazis'. Ideology does not necessarily seek what is ethical or morally right; whereas adherence to the U.S. Constitution is rooted in the more root-level, philosophical defense of individual liberty, states' rights, and generally, the smallest and weakest central government possible. Corporatist media can't stand to give these moral and legal stances their just moment in the sun because they go against the truly ideological underpinnings of the systems by which corporatist media thrive, thus exposing the corporate state as immoral and illicit; so they swiftly pass them off as fringe "ideology." That's right: according to the "largest and most trusted source of independent news and information," the supreme law of the land — meant to defend individual liberty and restrain the central government — is merely "ideology" at best.
If there is an ideological thread that runs through his actions, it seems libertarian. . . .
"It may seem out of character for a governor of a state with a struggling economy to turn down an offer of help," said Scott Huffmon, political science professor at Winthrop University who has watched Sanford's career. "However, there is an absolute ideological consistency to Mark Sanford. And to understand anything he does, you need to understand that."