Last March, Representative Peter King (R-NY) was the hero of the day when he led the charge to prevent a foreign country masquerading as a corporation named Dubai Ports World from taking over management of 22 U.S. seaports. Recently, he's been in the news again but his time, his outrage is over the New York Times reporting that the U.S. government is monitoring international wire transfers in and out of the country.

First of all, who among us didn't know that the government monitors money coming in and going out of the country via wire transfers? Please raise your hand - and then proceed to the corner with your dunce cap on. So what is this business really about?

Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me.. you can't get fooled again."

What we are witnessing is another stage play to manipulate your perception. The plot line runs something like this. The New York Times breaks a story about how the government has over stepped its bounds by monitoring financial transactions. Then we have the protagonist step forward to generate controversy. Enter Rep. Peter King.

King is shocked and horrified that the New York Times reported this story. Doesn't the New York Times know we are at war? Our national security depends on this secret monitoring of financial transactions in and out of the country.

At this point, the liberal left is supposed to step in to defend the New York Times reporting this story on first amendment principles of freedom of the press. The civil rights crowd will then enter the stage to demand that the government cease and desist the unconstitutional violation of privacy by monitoring banking transactions.

The sub plot is that there has been an effort underway to break down reciprocal banking laws and to implement free trade principles in the movement of money as called for in WTO agreements.

Multilateral Agreement on Investments from Public Citizen

Epitomized by MAI, the primary objective of the corporate "investment" agenda is to ensure the ability of speculators and multinational corporations to move capital in and out of countries without governmental involvement or public interests rules. We have seen the negative impacts of this model on the macroeconomic stability of nations, the sovereignty of governments, the well-being of workers and farmers, and the survival of small, independent businesses. In this system, worker rights, environmental protection, and necessary government regulation of the economy take a back seat to the interests of private capital.

So now what we need to know is who might have set up this little play for our entertainment? A good place to start looking is at the republican brownshirts in a Dear John letter to Treasury Secretary Snow:

Excerpts of the concerns:

The IRS is abusing its regulatory authority Executive branch agencies and departments are supposed to issue regulations that implement the laws enacted by Congress. More specifically, the IRS is supposed to promulgate regulations that help enforce U.S. tax law. And since the United States government does not tax bank deposit interest paid to nonresident aliens, there is no need to collect this information. Indeed, the IRS even admits that the purpose of the proposed regulation is to help foreign governments tax U.S.-source income.

The proposed regulation flouts existing law On several occasions, the U.S. Congress has examined the tax treatment of indirect foreign investment in the American economy. In every instance, the desire to attract capital has led lawmakers to decide not to tax deposit interest paid to nonresident aliens. Congress also has repeatedly chosen not to require the reporting of this income. The proposed IRS regulation, however, seeks to overturn the outcome of this democratic process. This undermines the rule-of-law and makes a mockery of the President's effort to rein in regulatory abuses.

No laws on foreigners in America means no laws on Americans in foreign countries.

No reciprocity means never having to say you're sorry (as you are being frog walked to jail).