So far, only the New York Post has said the word “czar”, but it was merely a matter of time before it came out in the new Czarist Amerika:
A Port Authority security task force yesterday urged that the nation adopt mandatory security standards for cargo and that the president appoint a port security czar to coordinate the federal agencies that oversee the nation’s 361 seaports.
So to reiterate what I said regarding adding an “intelligence czar” bureaucrat over the “Director of Central Intelligence”:
Titles of nobility are inherently symbolic – Itâ€™s not power that distringuishes a Cabinet Secretary from an hereditary Lord in England who is no longer even entitled to enter the House of Lords. It is the title. This habit of appointing Czars violates the spirit of the Constitutional prohibition on US Titles of nobility if not the letter. Iâ€™d maintain it actually violates the letter when every member of Congress refers to the appointee as a Czar, even if the actual bill may refer to â€œOffice of National Drug Control Policyâ€ or â€œOffice of Intelligence Policyâ€…
or even “Office of Port Security.”
Now will the Office of Port Security be part of the Department of Homeland Security? One problem with that: Can a Czar work for a Fuhrer?
No more Czars, no more Fuhrers, no more new taxes and no more halfhearted wars.
Your biggest fan,