What do you think?
Rate this book
Police State USA: How Orwell's Nightmare is Becoming our Reality
The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today. The God-given freedoms they championed in the Bill of Rights have been chipped away over the years by an ever-intrusive government bent on controlling all aspects of our lives in the name of safety and security. NSA wire-tapping and data collection is Orwellian in its scope. The TSA, BLM, and IRS are all jockeying for control of our lives. Warrantless searches are on the rise and even encouraged in some communities. Free speech, the right to bear arms, private property, and freedom of religion all are under attack. The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.
From traffic light cameras to phone tapping, from militarized police forces to targeting specific groups of people, the government is unfettered in its desire to control the American people. Police State USA chronicles how America got to the point of being a de facto police state and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the constitution and exploits 9/11 security fears to justify spying on its citizens. Stunning new surveillance technology makes it easier to keep tabs on the people. The acquisition by police departments of major battlefield equipment emboldens officials to strong-arm those they should be protecting. The failure of the news media to uphold the rights of citizens sets the stage for this slippery slope. Police State USA tells how we might overcome and recapture our freedoms, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
From traffic light cameras to phone tapping, from militarized police forces to targeting specific groups of people, the government is unfettered in its desire to control the American people. Police State USA chronicles how America got to the point of being a de facto police state and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the constitution and exploits 9/11 security fears to justify spying on its citizens. Stunning new surveillance technology makes it easier to keep tabs on the people. The acquisition by police departments of major battlefield equipment emboldens officials to strong-arm those they should be protecting. The failure of the news media to uphold the rights of citizens sets the stage for this slippery slope. Police State USA tells how we might overcome and recapture our freedoms, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
- GenresPolitics
293 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 27, 2014
11 people are currently reading
128 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 20, 2015
It is hard to imagine Cheryl Chumley without the image coming to mind of the walrus sidekick to the cartoon penguin with the Don Adams voice, Tennessee Tuxedo, coming to mind. “Duh, hey Tennessee!” (“right, Chumley!”) But joking aside, Ms. Chumley’s well intentioned book could use some razoring on a few points.
The first which stuck out at me is her Christian-biased viewpoint. I can remember when mainstream Christian America was solid, SOLID, behind Nixon’s law-n-order bullishness, and it was only “weirdoes” who felt threatened by their aggressive “patriotic” stance. Now, apparently, mainstream Christians are feeling the jackboot on their own necks, so now patriotism on their end is reverting to a very similar “anti-government” position (once held by the anti-war "weirdoes") as well, if only in self-defense. This might be a good thing, if it weren’t for, well, bias. One wonders what an atheist might make of her criticism that “our rights come from God, not government” (something I agree with in principle myself) -if God does not exist then our rights come from a "make-believe sky being", and therefore, arguments of this nature against the surveillance-state government must be themselves a fallacy, so go right on ahead, President Spybot, with your War On Terror! Well, one can envision it, even if it’s not likely, because there is room for all kinds of opinion in good old America.
Another toothsome chunk which stuck in my craw to the point of near agony was Ms. Chumley’s miscontrual of a very important point in the “drone-kill” capabilities of the office of President. Ms. Chumley purports that Eric Holder (of whom I was absolutely no fan!) wrote in reply to a question put to him by Rand Paul that the President has a right to use drones against US citizens inside the US. I was watching the debate, the Paul filibuster, and have taken an intense issue in just this episode as it unfolded. Ms. Chumley puts words in Holder’s mouth while absolutely ignoring the content and actual wording of Holder’s reply to Paul.
Without using the quote marks, she says, “Holder replied: Yes”. Actually, in point of fact, what Holder did reply was “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil? The answer to that is no." In fact, Holder's reply to Paul was seen by those of like mind as myself to have been a major victory by its admission that, of course, the president does not have such rights, and consequently, the government/POTUS has no such right to wage "extralegal assassinations" against the US public. But not to hear Ms. Chumley tell it!
So while Ms. Chumley complains about “liberal” bias in the media, apparently she is unwilling to present her case without interjecting her own brand of sophistry to “inform” the reader, in a manner both inconsistent with the facts, and in a way which misconstrues the actual argument away from the substance of the debate. I am no fan of Eric Holder, but I am a much bigger fan of the truth, the truth being what Ms. Chumley apparently sees as being in her own right to tinge with verbiage that presents itself pro forma as agenda-based and willing to overlook obvious points, as if her readers had heard absolutely nothing about all this before. Maybe she is writing for Joe Sikspak, but if so, she is doing him as much a disservice by ignoring actual points in favor of influencing the reader in some way.
It is hard to read much further without having one’s teeth set on edge, for as someone who is apparently on the same side of this debate as myself, Ms. Chumley is doing more, in end, to weaken the civil libertarian position, by throwing spin on the issues in a manner that she herself disapproves of when the "liberal media” are involved, and selectively chooses the way in which she wishes to present these issues. One example is her treatment of the ACLU. While she derides the ACLU from first instance as prejudicially “anti-Christian” she goes on to cite many examples of the ACLU standing up for individual rights in the path of the NSA PRISM scandal, and goes on from her first attack to use the ACLU, in fact, as one of her sources for information on a number of points. On that, it is again, hard to see where Ms. Chumley really wishes to take the issue and certainly not gaining credibility by attacking a source she goes on to repeatedly use as a base for her reporting!
So I give this book one less star than I might have. It doesn’t really tell me anything new about the US Police State and what it is up to, and how it came to be nor really present anything much going on I had not been aware of. It might even possibly turn a few people off from defending the issue on the public’s side, where it is intentionally trying to do otherwise. And her "fast and loose with facts" spins are the biggest turn off for what was, at first, seemingly refreshing, much-needed view of criticism of the surveillance state coming from “Regular America.”
The first which stuck out at me is her Christian-biased viewpoint. I can remember when mainstream Christian America was solid, SOLID, behind Nixon’s law-n-order bullishness, and it was only “weirdoes” who felt threatened by their aggressive “patriotic” stance. Now, apparently, mainstream Christians are feeling the jackboot on their own necks, so now patriotism on their end is reverting to a very similar “anti-government” position (once held by the anti-war "weirdoes") as well, if only in self-defense. This might be a good thing, if it weren’t for, well, bias. One wonders what an atheist might make of her criticism that “our rights come from God, not government” (something I agree with in principle myself) -if God does not exist then our rights come from a "make-believe sky being", and therefore, arguments of this nature against the surveillance-state government must be themselves a fallacy, so go right on ahead, President Spybot, with your War On Terror! Well, one can envision it, even if it’s not likely, because there is room for all kinds of opinion in good old America.
Another toothsome chunk which stuck in my craw to the point of near agony was Ms. Chumley’s miscontrual of a very important point in the “drone-kill” capabilities of the office of President. Ms. Chumley purports that Eric Holder (of whom I was absolutely no fan!) wrote in reply to a question put to him by Rand Paul that the President has a right to use drones against US citizens inside the US. I was watching the debate, the Paul filibuster, and have taken an intense issue in just this episode as it unfolded. Ms. Chumley puts words in Holder’s mouth while absolutely ignoring the content and actual wording of Holder’s reply to Paul.
Without using the quote marks, she says, “Holder replied: Yes”. Actually, in point of fact, what Holder did reply was “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil? The answer to that is no." In fact, Holder's reply to Paul was seen by those of like mind as myself to have been a major victory by its admission that, of course, the president does not have such rights, and consequently, the government/POTUS has no such right to wage "extralegal assassinations" against the US public. But not to hear Ms. Chumley tell it!
So while Ms. Chumley complains about “liberal” bias in the media, apparently she is unwilling to present her case without interjecting her own brand of sophistry to “inform” the reader, in a manner both inconsistent with the facts, and in a way which misconstrues the actual argument away from the substance of the debate. I am no fan of Eric Holder, but I am a much bigger fan of the truth, the truth being what Ms. Chumley apparently sees as being in her own right to tinge with verbiage that presents itself pro forma as agenda-based and willing to overlook obvious points, as if her readers had heard absolutely nothing about all this before. Maybe she is writing for Joe Sikspak, but if so, she is doing him as much a disservice by ignoring actual points in favor of influencing the reader in some way.
It is hard to read much further without having one’s teeth set on edge, for as someone who is apparently on the same side of this debate as myself, Ms. Chumley is doing more, in end, to weaken the civil libertarian position, by throwing spin on the issues in a manner that she herself disapproves of when the "liberal media” are involved, and selectively chooses the way in which she wishes to present these issues. One example is her treatment of the ACLU. While she derides the ACLU from first instance as prejudicially “anti-Christian” she goes on to cite many examples of the ACLU standing up for individual rights in the path of the NSA PRISM scandal, and goes on from her first attack to use the ACLU, in fact, as one of her sources for information on a number of points. On that, it is again, hard to see where Ms. Chumley really wishes to take the issue and certainly not gaining credibility by attacking a source she goes on to repeatedly use as a base for her reporting!
So I give this book one less star than I might have. It doesn’t really tell me anything new about the US Police State and what it is up to, and how it came to be nor really present anything much going on I had not been aware of. It might even possibly turn a few people off from defending the issue on the public’s side, where it is intentionally trying to do otherwise. And her "fast and loose with facts" spins are the biggest turn off for what was, at first, seemingly refreshing, much-needed view of criticism of the surveillance state coming from “Regular America.”
November 18, 2014
Imagine this: Police want to use your house for a neighborhood stakeout. You refuse, so they arrest you for obstruction and take over your house anyway.
Or late at night, police are pursuing a suspect through your neighborhood when they see a house - yours - with an open window. They've lost the suspect, so they all crawl in through your window, search your house, and then handcuff and interrogate you.
Imagine your son's harmless sidewalk lemonade stand being shut down because he did not have a fifty-dollar permit. Or perhaps your daughter takes a bag lunch to school but at lunchtime is forced to accept and eat a school lunch because the school says it is "healthier" than the lunch you packed for her.
Imagine taking a stroll through your neighborhood, blissfully unaware that the streetlights overhead could be recording your every move, and even your conversations.
Imagine being pulled over by a police officer for a minor traffic violation, and as he conducts his duties he sees a wad of cash on your passenger seat and immediately jumps to the conclusion that you are either a drug dealer or involved in money laundering. Your car, cash, and belongings are confiscated and you end up in jail - without being charged with anything. When you're released you spend months trying to get back what rightfully belongs to you.
Imagine opening your front door and stepping into the potential for these and similar situations on a daily basis. But perhaps imagination is not necessary. According to author Cheryl K. Chumley, this is the current state of America.
Although not an academic, in-depth analysis, "Police State USA" is a concise and informative overview of many issues intruding upon the concept of privacy in America (the situations above are all discussed in the book), and the underlying question being asked is, How much is too much?
The book could be considered a warning about the consequences of living in a time when privacy has been increasingly devalued. Or it could be seen as an overly alarmist generalization from relatively rare specifics. The reader’s personal politics likely will determine whether the book is seen as useful or irrelevant.
It certainly cannot be called pointless, though, as the author drives home her point on every page. Each chapter is devoted to a "hot button" topic that ranges from daily activities like shopping all the way up to presidential policies that affect not only us but the rest of the world as well.
Often, a policy from one area may bleed over into another. For example, how did a push in our military for a better "clean energy program" result in the Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to prevent people from using wood-burning stoves in their own homes? "Environmentalism," writes Chumley, "is not so much about commonsense measure... but more about control."
We've become so accustomed to the ubiquitous transfer of electronic information in our daily lives that many of us probably never give a second thought to what's being done with our personal information. A father who takes his family on a Disney theme park vacation is probably not aware that "...Disney is a big-time trader on the information market," sharing its guests' personal information with both subsidiaries and outside corporations. The simple fact that you exist and can be identified means that someone, somewhere is somehow profiting from that identifying information.
Some of the other topics covered include the Patriot Act (three days from conception to inception), the National Security Agency's PRISM program (brought to light by Edward Snowden), the militarization of police, the use of drones and, in a nod to George Orwell's concept of Big Brother from "1984," a chapter on "Orwellian Technology" that discusses some current developments that are just asking to be abused.
"At what point do we admit that government cannot guarantee our security and save us all from harm?" asks Chumley.
You won't necessarily find answers here, but then, this isn't that kind of book. It is a book designed to make you think. Are we, as Chumley asserts, "...turning into a nation ruled by fear?" And if so, is there any way to avoid "...an intrusive government, a burdensome regulatory climate, a state of continuous federal overreach, and a police state atmosphere?"
Cheryl K. Chumley has done a fine job of bringing awareness to and providing examples of some of the many ways in which those in authority and big business tend to overstep their bounds, and "Police State USA" is an excellent source for initiating discussion.
In the end, though, it’s up to you to discover your own answers.
Or late at night, police are pursuing a suspect through your neighborhood when they see a house - yours - with an open window. They've lost the suspect, so they all crawl in through your window, search your house, and then handcuff and interrogate you.
Imagine your son's harmless sidewalk lemonade stand being shut down because he did not have a fifty-dollar permit. Or perhaps your daughter takes a bag lunch to school but at lunchtime is forced to accept and eat a school lunch because the school says it is "healthier" than the lunch you packed for her.
Imagine taking a stroll through your neighborhood, blissfully unaware that the streetlights overhead could be recording your every move, and even your conversations.
Imagine being pulled over by a police officer for a minor traffic violation, and as he conducts his duties he sees a wad of cash on your passenger seat and immediately jumps to the conclusion that you are either a drug dealer or involved in money laundering. Your car, cash, and belongings are confiscated and you end up in jail - without being charged with anything. When you're released you spend months trying to get back what rightfully belongs to you.
Imagine opening your front door and stepping into the potential for these and similar situations on a daily basis. But perhaps imagination is not necessary. According to author Cheryl K. Chumley, this is the current state of America.
Although not an academic, in-depth analysis, "Police State USA" is a concise and informative overview of many issues intruding upon the concept of privacy in America (the situations above are all discussed in the book), and the underlying question being asked is, How much is too much?
The book could be considered a warning about the consequences of living in a time when privacy has been increasingly devalued. Or it could be seen as an overly alarmist generalization from relatively rare specifics. The reader’s personal politics likely will determine whether the book is seen as useful or irrelevant.
It certainly cannot be called pointless, though, as the author drives home her point on every page. Each chapter is devoted to a "hot button" topic that ranges from daily activities like shopping all the way up to presidential policies that affect not only us but the rest of the world as well.
Often, a policy from one area may bleed over into another. For example, how did a push in our military for a better "clean energy program" result in the Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to prevent people from using wood-burning stoves in their own homes? "Environmentalism," writes Chumley, "is not so much about commonsense measure... but more about control."
We've become so accustomed to the ubiquitous transfer of electronic information in our daily lives that many of us probably never give a second thought to what's being done with our personal information. A father who takes his family on a Disney theme park vacation is probably not aware that "...Disney is a big-time trader on the information market," sharing its guests' personal information with both subsidiaries and outside corporations. The simple fact that you exist and can be identified means that someone, somewhere is somehow profiting from that identifying information.
Some of the other topics covered include the Patriot Act (three days from conception to inception), the National Security Agency's PRISM program (brought to light by Edward Snowden), the militarization of police, the use of drones and, in a nod to George Orwell's concept of Big Brother from "1984," a chapter on "Orwellian Technology" that discusses some current developments that are just asking to be abused.
"At what point do we admit that government cannot guarantee our security and save us all from harm?" asks Chumley.
You won't necessarily find answers here, but then, this isn't that kind of book. It is a book designed to make you think. Are we, as Chumley asserts, "...turning into a nation ruled by fear?" And if so, is there any way to avoid "...an intrusive government, a burdensome regulatory climate, a state of continuous federal overreach, and a police state atmosphere?"
Cheryl K. Chumley has done a fine job of bringing awareness to and providing examples of some of the many ways in which those in authority and big business tend to overstep their bounds, and "Police State USA" is an excellent source for initiating discussion.
In the end, though, it’s up to you to discover your own answers.
March 2, 2025
A good look into the vast scope of government overreach sold as innocent uses, as well as the slow but obvious turn towards surveillance state. Also a look at the poor judgement of law enforcement cases as well as government officials. The differences of the founding fathers to the government we are faced with today, sources provided, makes it hard to ignore
September 5, 2024
Well , it’s hard to absorb all the accounts of government control over the last several years
Much of this book makes me angry in realizing how far away from God we are.
FEW people who complain get much attention.
We are a sue happy society, which causes people and organizations as well government to give in to things they don’t believe in. It’s maddening and very sad. Glad I read this book. Learned a lot.
Much of this book makes me angry in realizing how far away from God we are.
FEW people who complain get much attention.
We are a sue happy society, which causes people and organizations as well government to give in to things they don’t believe in. It’s maddening and very sad. Glad I read this book. Learned a lot.
March 16, 2021
I like what I saw in this book, altho unable to read it thoroughly, I skimmed through it. It has 211 pages. We must stop tyranny as Chumley encourages.
November 29, 2020
Facts don't lie
I am proud to say I am not politically correct.
I read this book. Then reread it. Then bought the book and had it sent to my brother.
It was filled with so much information that supported it with with facts, laws, The Constitution, bills, Executive orders I know this isn't fake news.
I definitely recommend this book.
I am proud to say I am not politically correct.
I read this book. Then reread it. Then bought the book and had it sent to my brother.
It was filled with so much information that supported it with with facts, laws, The Constitution, bills, Executive orders I know this isn't fake news.
I definitely recommend this book.
November 27, 2017
The author had some valid points but she turned the book into a zealot Christian Right wing babble. If she could have left out her personal attacks on Islam and Obama it would have made for easier digestion. I will not read again by her.
July 21, 2014
nothing revelationary and overly biased point of view ...
September 4, 2014
Interesting book with lot of old info. of how we not representative republic.
May 2, 2018
Amusing. Maybe a better title would have been "Hypocrisy USA". Even the foreword is from one representative building the said Police State.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews