Most popular Home Security auctions

Some recent Home Security auctions on eBay:

SANNCE 5in1 8CH 1080N DVR 4 720P TVI IR Night Vision Home Security Camera System

$89.99
End Date: Wednesday Aug-22-2018 10:01:42 PDT
Buy It Now for only: $89.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Zmodo 720p HD 4 IP Wireless Outdoor IR Night Vision Home Security Camera System
$109.99
End Date: Thursday Sep-13-2018 10:00:49 PDT
Buy It Now for only: $109.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

MIT Sloan School of Management to Offer Online Education Program for CIMA

gI_46646_execed_vertical_notag_crop-PMS


New York, NY (PRWEB) February 09, 2015

Investment Management Consultants Association® (IMCA®) announced today that the MIT Sloan School of Management will begin offering an online registered education program for CIMA® certification candidates starting June 1. Professor Andrew Lo, a leading authority on hedge funds, financial engineering, risk management, and behavioral economics, will serve as the program’s faculty advisor.

“This strategic relationship with the MIT Sloan School of Management supports IMCA’s mission to deliver premier credentials and world-class education to today’s advanced investment advisors and wealth managers,” said IMCA executive director and chief executive officer Sean R. Walters, CAE. “In addition, this increases access to high quality education for advisors seeking to distinguish their expertise in today’s global and highly sophisticated marketplace. We are pleased that MIT Sloan, as a best-in-class education provider, is offering CIMA certification candidates a convenient format for furthering their investment knowledge.”

“We are very excited to offer this new and innovative program with IMCA to help CIMA candidates meet their requirements and prepare for their examination, said Peter Hirst, executive director at MIT Sloan Executive Education. “By offering this program online, we are providing a much-needed solution to today’s time-constrained financial advisors and consultants, while still providing them with access to some of the brightest financial minds in the world.”

The MIT Sloan School of Management represents yet another top-tier business school providing education for CIMA certification candidates, who now have four U.S.-based options for completing the education component of the certification: Carnegie Mellon University, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, MIT Sloan School of Management, and The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. The four schools are ranked among America’s top-20 business schools, according to Bloomberg Businessweek and U.S. News & World Report.

MIT Sloan School of Management’s program is an online executive education experience designed for any CIMA certification candidate. The program includes study aids and resources including videos, learning modules, exercises, and application. Participants must complete 40 hours of required online work, pass section quizzes, and pass an exam within a 60-day window to successfully complete the course.

To earn the prestigious CIMA certification, candidates must complete five steps: 1. Exhibit three years of experience; 2. Pass a qualification exam; 3. Complete a registered executive education program; 4. Pass a certification exam; 5. Agree to adhere to IMCA’s Code of Professional Responsibility and maintain all recertification requirements.

Since 1988, IMCA has offered the CIMA® certification, which earned accreditation by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in April 2011, making it the first—and currently the only—financial services credential in the United States to meet international standards (ISO 17024) for personnel certification.

For more information about the MIT Sloan School of Management program and the other registered education providers for CIMA certification, visit http://www.imca.org/pages/registered-education-providers.

About MIT Sloan School of Management

MIT Sloan Executive Education brings breakthrough management concepts to motivated executives from around the world. From intensive short courses focused on a particular area of interest, to executive certificates covering a range of management topics, to custom engagements addressing the specific business challenges of a particular organization, MIT Sloan’s portfolio of non-degree executive education and management programs offers business professionals a targeted and flexible means to advance their career development goals and position their organizations for future grow. Learn more at http://executive.mit.edu.

About IMCA

Established in 1985, IMCA is a nonprofit professional association and credentialing organization with more than 10,000 individual members and certificants in the United States and Canada, including 400 international affiliate members. IMCA members collectively manage more than $ 2.477 trillion, providing investment consulting and wealth management services to individual and institutional clients. Since 1988, IMCA has offered the Certified Investment Management Analyst® (CIMA®) certification, which earned accreditation by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in April 2011, making it the first financial services credential in the United States to meet international standards (ISO 17024) for personnel certification. IMCA’s Certified Private Wealth Advisor® (CPWA®) certification is suited for wealth management professionals working with high-net-worth clients. In 2014, IMCA conferences and workshops hosted nearly 4,000 attendees.

IMCA® and Investment Management Consultants Association® are registered trademarks of Investment Management Consultants Association Inc. CIMA®, Certified Investment Management Analyst®, CIMC®, CPWA®, and Certified Private Wealth Advisor® are registered certification marks of Investment Management Consultants Association Inc. Investment Management Consultants Association Inc. does not discriminate in educational opportunities or practices on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, or any other characteristic protected by law.







More Window Coverings Press Releases

CNET Top 5 – DIY home security systems

The best home security solutions you can set up all on your own.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

George Anastaplo ~ Right of Revolution ~ RIP My Friend

5956900622_bdfd3243c0

Some cool Keep Your Home Secure images:

George Anastaplo ~ Right of Revolution ~ RIP My Friend
Keep Your Home Secure
Image by Viewminder
Before I made the acquaintance of George Anastaplo I saw him walking down the street in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood.

There was something about him that caught my eye… something about the way that he walked and the way that he smiled… there was something about his spirit… there was something that I wanted to capture.

George has what I like to call ‘The Magic Mojo.’

I wanted to pop him right there on the street but I was late in getting to a very special dinner with some great friends.

I had to let the urge go.

I regretted my artistic inaction the moment I passed him on the street there.

Fortunately the regret would be short lived.

In one of those funny little twists of fate that life seems to lay on me… when we got to the dinner George ended up being seated right next to me.

He’s a fascinating guy.

A great storyteller, I really enjoyed the conversation that we shared as we sat there at the table.

‘While most lawyers go through an entire career without getting the opportunity to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, George Anastaplo did so without entering the legal profession—and then, he likes to say, he retired.’ ~ Maria Kantzavelos, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 25, 2011, page 1

George completed his undergraduate degree in only one year at the University of Chicago.

It took me longer than that to pay my overdue library fines from freshman year.

In 1951 he graduated at the top of his law school class.

I would have liked to have sat next to him.

In 1964 George completed his doctorate at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought.

Since then he’s written more than 20 books on a multitude of subjects.

"A longtime Loyola University Chicago School of Law professor who today teaches courses in constitutional law and jurisprudence, Anastaplo became an eclectic scholar and teacher" ~ Maria Kantzavelos

‘Fifty years ago Sunday, on April 24, 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision that affirmed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court to deny Anastaplo admission to the Illinois bar because he refused to answer questions asked by the bar’s character committee about political associations.’ ~ Maria Kantzavelos

When George graduated from law school and he interviewed for admission into the Illinois Bar Association he had to be questioned in front of the ‘character committee’ they asked ‘do you think a communist should be admitted into the bar of this state?’

George’s answer?

‘Well, why not?’

Then they asked George if he was now or was ever a member of the Communist Party.

George didn’t feel that he should answer that question and because of that conviction they wouldn’t give him admission into the Illinois Bar and he couldn’t practice law even though the dude graduated at the top of his class. Hmmmmph.

‘Had he gone along with the process, things could have turned out differently for Anastaplo, who was being considered for a position at one of the big law firms in town.’ ~ Maria Kantzavelos

But that didn’t stop the fiesty twenty five year old.

He fought over the next ten years, ultimately laying out his case in front of the United States Supreme Court.

He argued there as a lawyer without a license!

‘In 1954 petitioner, George Anastaplo, an instructor and research assistant at the University of Chicago, having previously passed his Illinois bar examinations, was denied admission to the bar of that State by the Illinois Supreme Court. The denial was based upon his refusal to answer questions of the Committee on Character and Fitness as to whether he was a member of the Communist Party.’ ~ 366 U.S. 82 IN RE ANASTAPLO

‘The ensuing lengthy proceedings before the Committee, at which Anastaplo was the only witness, are perhaps best described as a wide-ranging exchange between the Committee and Anastaplo in which the Committee sought to explore Anastaplo’s ability conscientiously to swear support of the Federal and State Constitutions, as required by the Illinois attorneys’ oath, and Anastaplo undertook to expound and defend, on historical and ideological premises, his abstract belief in the ‘right of revolution,’ and to resist, on grounds of asserted constitutional right and scruple, Committee questions which he deemed improper. The Committee already had before it uncontroverted evidence as to Anastaplo’s ‘good moral character,’ in the form of written statements or affidavits furnished by persons of standing acquainted with him, and the record on rehearing contains nothing which could properly be considered as reflecting adversely upon his character or reputation or on the sincerity of the beliefs he espoused before the Committee. Anastaplo persisted, however, in refusing to answer, among other inquiries, the Committee’s questions as to his possible membership in the Communist Party or in other allegedly related organizations. ~ 366 U.S. 82 IN RE ANASTAPLO

Thereafter the Committee, by a vote of 11 to 6, again declined to certify Anastaplo because of his refusal to answer such questions, the majority stating in its report to the Illinois Supreme Court:

‘his (Anastaplo’s) failure to reply, in our view, obstructs the lawful processes of the Committee, prevents inquiry into subjects which bear intimately upon the issue of character and fitness, such as loyalty to our basic institutions, belief in representative government and bona fides of the attorney’s oath and results in his failure to meet the burden of establishing that he possesses the good moral character and fitness to practice law, which are conditions to the granting of a license to practice law.

‘We draw no inference of disloyalty or subversion from applicant’s continued refusal to answer questions concerning Communist or other subversive affiliations. We do, however, hold that there is a strong public interest in our being free to question applicants for admission to the bar on their adherence to our basic institutions and form of government and that such public interest in the character of its attorneys overrides an applicant’s private interest in keeping such views to himself. By failing to respond to this higher public interest we hold that the applicant has obstructed the proper functions of the Committee. We cannot certify the applicant as worthy of the trust and confidence of the public when we do not know that he is so worthy and when he has prevented us from finding out.’

At the same time the full Committee acknowledged that Anastaplo ‘is well regarded by his academic associates, by professors who had taught him in school and by members of the Bar who know him personally’; that it had ‘not been supplied with any information by any third party which is derogatory to Anastaplo’s character or general reputation. ~ ~ 366 U.S. 82 IN RE ANASTAPLO

THE DISSENTING OPINION

‘United States Supreme Court

366 U.S. 82

IN RE ANASTAPLO

No. 58. Argued: December 14, 1960. — Decided: April 24, 1961.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.

Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice BRENNAN concur, dissenting.

The petitioner George Anastaplo has been denied the right to practice law in the State of Illinois for refusing to answer questions about his views and associations. I think this action by the State violated rights guaranteed to him by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The reasons which lead me to this conclusion are largely the same as those expressed in my dissenting opinion in Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. at page 56, 81 S.Ct. at page 1010. But this case provides such a striking illustration of the destruction that can be inflicted upon individual liberty when this Court fails to enforce the First Amendment to the full extent of its express and unequivocal terms that I think it deserves separate treatment.

The controversy began in November 1950, when Anastaplo, a student at the University of Chicago Law School, having two months previously successfully passed the Illinos Bar examination, appeared before the State’s Committee on Character and Fitness for the usual interview preliminary to admission to the Bar. The personal history form required by state law had been filled out and filed with the Committee prior to his appearance and showed that Anastaplo was an unusually worthy applicant for admission. His early life had been spent in a small town in southern Illinois where his parents, who had immigrated to this country from Greece before his birth, still resided. After having received his precollege education in the public schools of his home town, he had discontinued his education, at the age of eighteen, and joined the Air Force during the middle of World War II-flying as a navigator in every major theater of the military operations of that war. Upon receiving an honorable discharge in 1947, he had come to Chicago and resumed his education, obtaining his undergraduate degree at the University of Chicago and entering immediately into the study of law at the University of Chicago Law School. His record throughout his life, both as a student and as a citizen, was unblemished.

The personal history form thus did not contain so much as one statement of fact about Anastaplo’s past life or conduct that could have, in any way, cast doubt upon his fitness for admission to the Bar. It did, however, contain a statement of opinion which, in the minds of some of the members of the Committee at least, did cast such doubt and in that way served to touch off this controversy. This was a statement made by Anastaplo in response to the command of the personal history form: ‘State what you consider to be the principles underlying the Constitution of the United States.’ Anastaplo’s response to that command was as follows:

‘One principle consists of the doctrine of the separation of powers; thus, among the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary are distributed various functions and powers in a manner designed to provide for a balance of power, thereby intending to prevent totally unrestrained action by any one branch of government. Another basic principle (and the most important) is that such government is constituted so as to secure certain inalienable rights, those rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and elements of these rights are explicitly set forth in such parts of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.). And, of course, whenever the particular government in power becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and thereupon to establish a new government. This is how I view the Constitution.’

When Anastaplo appeared before a two-man Subcommittee of the Committee on Character and Fitness, one of its members almost immediately engaged him in a discussion relating to the meaning of these italicized words which were substantially taken from that part of the Declaration of Independence set out below. This discussion soon developed into an argument as Anastaplo stood by his statement and insisted that if a government gets bad enough, the people have a ‘right of revolution.’ It was at this juncture in the proceedings that the other member of the Subcommittee interrupted with the question: ‘Are you a member of any organization that is listed on the Attorney General’s list, to your knowledge?’ And this question was followed up a few moments later with the question: ‘Are you a member of the Communist Party?’ A colloquy then ensued between Anastaplo and the two members of the Subcommittee as to the legitimacy of the questions being asked, Anastaplo insisting that these questions were not reasonably related to the Committee’s functions and that they violated his rights under the Constitution, and the members of the Subcommittee insisting that the questions were entirely legitimate.

The Subcommittee then refused to certify Anastaplo for admission to the Bar but, instead, set a further hearing on the matter before the full Committee. That next hearing, as well as all of the hearings that followed, have been little more than repetitions of the first. The rift between Anastaplo and the Committee has grown ever wider with each successive hearing. Anastaplo has stead-fastly refused to answer any questions put by the Committee which inquired into his political associations or religious beliefs. A majority of the members of the Committee, faced with this refusal, has grown more and more insistent that it has the right to force him to answer any question it sees fit to ask. The result has been a series of hearings in which questions have been put to Anastaplo with regard to his ‘possible’ association with scores of organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Silver Shirts (an allegedly Fascist organization), every organization on the so-called Attorney General’s list, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the Communist Party. At one point in the proceedings, at least two of the members of the Committee insisted that he tell the Committee whether he believes in a Supreme Being and one of these members stated that, as far as his vote was concerned, a man’s ‘belief in the Deity * * * has a substantial bearing upon his fitness to practice law.’

It is true, as the majority points out, that the Committee did not expressly rest its refusal to certify Anastaplo for admission to the Bar either upon his views on the ‘right of revolution,’ as that ‘right’ is defined in the Declaration of Independence, or upon his refusal to disclose his beliefs with regard to the existence of God, [4] or upon his refusals to disclose any of his political associations other than his ‘possible’ association with the Communist Party. But it certainly cannot be denied that the other questions were asked and, since we should not presume that these members of the Committee did not want answers to their questions, it seems certain that Anastaplo’s refusal to answer them must have had some influence upon the final outcome of the hearings. In any case, when the Committee did vote, 11-6, not to certify Anastaplo for admission, not one member who asked any question Anastaplo had refused to answer voted in his favor.

The reasons for Anastaplo’s position have been stated by him time and again-first, to the Committee and, later, in the briefs and oral arguments he presented in his own behalf, both before this Court and before the Supreme Court of Illinois. From a legal standpoint, his position throughout has been that the First Amendment gave him a right not to disclose his political associations or his religious beliefs to the Committee. But his decision to refuse to disclose these associations and beliefs went much deeper than a bare reliance upon what he considered to be his legal rights. The record shows that his refusal to answer the Committee’s question stemmed primarily from his belief that he had a duty, both to society and to the legal profession, not to submit to the demands of the Committee because he believed that the questions had been asked solely for the purpose of harassing him because he had expressed agreement with the assertion of the right of revolution against an evil government set out in the Declaration of Independence. His position was perhaps best stated before the Committee in his closing remarks at the final session:

‘It is time now to close. Differences between us remain. I leave to others the sometimes necessary but relatively easy task of praising Athens to Athenians. Besides, you should want no higher praise than what I have said about the contribution the bar can make to republican government. The bar deserves no higher praise until it makes that contribution. You should be grateful that I have not made a complete submission to you, even though I have cooperated as fully as good conscience permits. To the extent I have not submitted, to that extent have I contributed to the solution of one of the most pressing problems that you, as men devoted to character and fitness, must face. This is the problem of selecting the standards and methods the bar must employ if it is to help preserve and nourish that idealism, that vital interest in the problem of justice, that so often lies at the heart of the intelligent and sensitive law student’s choice of career. This is an idealism which so many things about the bar, and even about bar admission practices, discourage and make unfashionable to defend or retain. The worthiest men live where the rewards of virtue are greatest.

‘I leave with you men of Illinois the suggestion that you do yourselves and the bar the honor, as well as the service, of anticipating what I trust will be the judgment of our most thoughtful judges. I move therefore that you recommend to the Supreme Court of Illinois that I be admitted to the bar of this State. And I suggest that this recommendation be made retroactive to November 10, 1950 when a young Air Force veteran first was so foolish as to continue to serve his country by daring to defend against a committee on character and fitness the teaching of the Declaration of Independence on the right of revolution.’

The reasons for the Committee’s position are also clear. Its job, throughout these proceedings, has been to determine whether Anastaplo is possessed of the necessary good moral character to justify his admission to the Bar of Illinois. In that regard, the Committee has been given the benefit of voluminous affidavits from men of standing in their professions and in the community that Anastaplo is possessed of an unusually fine character. Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at the University of Wisconsin, for example, described Anastaplo as ‘intellectually able, a hard, thorough student and moved by high devotion to the principles of freedom and justice.’ Professor Malcolm P. Sharp of the University of Chicago Law School stated: ‘No question has ever been raised about his honesty or his integrity, and his general conduct, characterized by friendliness, quiet independence, industry and courage, is reflected in his reputation.’ Professor Roscoe T. Steffen of the University of Chicago Law School said: ‘I know of no one who doubts his honesty and integrity.’ Yves R. Simon, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago, said: ‘I consider Anastaplo as a young man of the most distinguished and lofty moral character. Everybody respects him and likes him.’ Angelo G. Geocaris, a practicing attorney in the City of Chicago, said of Anastaplo: ‘His personal code of ethics is unexcelled by any practicing attorney I have met in the state of Illinois.’ Robert J. Coughlan, Division Director of a research project at the University of Chicago, said: ‘His honesty and integrity are, in my opinion, beyond question. I would highly recommend him without the slightest reservation for any position involving the highest or most sacred trust. The applicant is a rare man among us today: he has an inviolable sense of Honor in the great traditions of Greek culture and thought. If admitted to the American Bar, he could do nothing that would not reflect glory on that institution.’

These affidavits and many more like them were presented to the Committee. Most of the statements came from men who knew Anastaplo intimately on the University of Chicago campus where Anastaplo has remained throughout the proceedings here involved, working as a research assistant and as a lecturer in Liberal Arts and studying for an advanced degree in History and Social Sciences. Even at the present time, he is still there preparing his doctoral dissertation which, understandably enough, is tentatively entitled ‘The Historical and Philosophical Background of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.’

The record also shows that the Committee supplemented the information it had obtained about Anastaplo from these affidavits by conducting informal independent investigations into his character and reputation. It sent agents to Anastaplo’s home town in southern Illinois and they questioned the people who knew him there. Similar inquiries were made among those who knew him in Chicago. But these intensive investigations apparently failed to produce so much as one man in Chicago or in the whole State of Illinois who could say or would say, directly, indirectly or even by hearsay, one thing derogatory to the character, loyalty or reputation of George Anastaplo, and not one man could be found who would in any way link him with the Communist Party. This fact is particularly significant in view of the evidence in the record that the Committee had become acquainted with a person who apparently had been a member of a Communist Party cell on the University of Chicago campus and that this person was asked to and did identify for the Committee every member of the Party whom he knew.

In addition to the information it had obtained from the affidavits and from its independent investigations, the Committee had one more important source of information about Anastaplo’s character. It had the opportunity to observe the manner in which he conducted himself during the many hours of hearings before it. That manner, as revealed by the record before us and undenied by any findings of the Committee to the contrary, left absolutely nothing to be desired. Faced with a barrage of sometimes highly provocative and totally irrelevant questions from men openly hostile to his position, Anastaplo invariably responded with all the dignity and restraint attributed to him in the affidavits of his friends. Moreover, it is not amiss to say that he conducted himself in precisely the same manner during the oral argument he presented before this Court.

Thus, it is against the background of a mountain of evidence so favorable to Anastaplo that the word ‘overwhelming’ seems inadequate to describe it that the action of the Committee in refusing to certify Anastaplo as fit for admission to the Bar must be considered. The majority of the Committee rationalized its position on the ground that without answers to some of the questions it had asked, it could not conscientiously perform its duty of determining Anastaplo’s character and fitness to be a lawyer. A minority of the Committee described this explanation as ‘pure sophistry.’ And it is simply impossible to read this record without agreeing with the minority. For, it is difficult to see what possible relevancy answers to the questions could have had in the minds of these members of the Committee after they had received such completely overwhelming proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Anastaplo’s good character and staunch patriotism. I can think of no sound reason for further insistence upon these answers other than the very questionable, but very human, feeling that this young man should not be permitted to resist the Committee’s demands without being compelled to suffer for it in some way.

It is intimated that the Committee’s feeling of resentment might be assuaged and that Anastaplo might even be admitted to the Bar if he would only give in to the demands of the Committee and add the requested test oath to the already overwhelming proof he has submitted to establish his good character and patriotism. In this connection, the Court says: ‘We find nothing to suggest that he would not be admitted now if he decides to answer, assuming of course that no grounds justifying his exclusion from practice resulted. In short, petitioner holds the key to admission in his own hands.’ However well this familiar phrase may fit other cases, it does not fit this one. For the attitude of the Committee, as revealed by the transcript of its hearings, does not support a belief that Anastaplo can gain admission to the Illinois Bar merely by answering the Committee’s questions, whatever answers he should give. Indeed, the Committee’s own majority report discloses that Anastaplo’s belief in the ‘right of revolution’ was regarded as raising ‘a serious question’ in the minds of a majority of the Committee with regard to his fitness to practice law and that ‘certain’ members of that majority (how many, we cannot know) have already stated categorically that they will not vote to admit an applicant who expresses such views. Nor does the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court indicate that Anastaplo ‘holds the key to admission in his own hands.’ Quite the contrary, that court’s opinion evidences an almost insuperable reluctance to upset the findings of the Committee. Certainly, that opinion contains nothing that even vaguely resembles the sort of implicit promise that would justify the belief asserted by the majority here. And, finally, I see nothing in the majority opinion of this Court, nor in the majority opinions in the companion cases decided today, that would justify a belief that this Court would unlock the door that blocks his admission to the Illinois Bar if Anastaplo produced the ‘key’ and the state authorities refused to use it.

The opinion of the majority already recognizes that there is not one scrap of evidence in the record before us ‘which could properly be considered as reflecting adversely upon his (Anastaplo’s) character or reputation or on the sincerity of the beliefs he espoused before the Committee,’ and that the Committee had not received any "information from any outside source which would cast any doubt on applicant’s loyalty or which would tend to connect him in any manner with any subversive group." The majority opinion even concedes that Anastaplo was correct in urging that the questions asked by the Committee impinged upon the freedoms of speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. But, the opinion then goes on to hold that Anastaplo can nonetheless be excluded from the Bar pursuant to ‘the State’s interest in having lawyers who are devoted to the law in its broadest sense .’ I cannot regard that holding, as applied to a man like Anastaplo, as in any way justified. Consider it, for example, in the context of the following remarks of Anastaplo to the Committee-remarks the sincerity of which the majority does not deny:

‘I speak of a need to remind the bar of its traditions and to keep alive the spirit of dignified but determined advocacy and opposition. This is not only for the good of the bar, of course, but also because of what the bar means to American republican government. The bar when it exercises self-control is in a peculiar position to mediate between popular passions and informed and principled men, thereby upholding republican government. Unless there is this mediation, intelligent and responsible government is unlikely. The bar, furthermore, is in a peculiar position to apply to our daily lives the constitutional principles which nourish for this country its inner life. Unless there is this nourishment, a just and humane people is impossible. The bar is, in short, in a position to train and lead by precept and example the American people.’

These are not the words of a man who lacks devotion to ‘the law in its broadest sense.’

The majority, apparently considering this fact irrelevant because the State might possibly have an interest in learning more about its Bar applicants, decides that Anastaplo can properly be denied admission to the Bar by purporting to ‘balance’ the interest of the State of Illinois in ‘having lawyers who are devoted to the law in its broadest sense’ against the interest of Anastaplo and the public in protecting the freedoms of the First Amendment, concluding, as it usually does when it engages in this process, that ‘on balance’ the interest of Illinois must prevail. If I had ever doubted that the ‘balancing test’ comes close to being a doctrine of governmental absolutism-that to ‘balance’ an interest in individual liberty means almost inevitably to destroy that liberty-those doubts would have been dissipated by this case. For this so-called ‘balancing test’-which, as applied to the First Amendment, means that the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion and petition can be repressed whenever there is a sufficient governmental interest in doing so-here proves pitifully and pathetically inadequate to cope with an invasion of individual liberty so plainly unjustified that even the majority apparently feels compelled expressly to disclaim ‘any view upon the wisdom of the State’s action.’

I, of course, wholeheartedly agree with the statement of the majority that this Court should not, merely on the ground that such action is unwise, interfere with governmental action that is within the constitutional powers of that government. But I am no less certain that this Court should not permit governmental action that plainly abridges constitutionally protected rights of the People merely because a majority believes that on ‘balance’ it is better, or ‘wiser,’ to abridge those rights than to leave them free. The inherent vice of the ‘balancing test’ is that it purports to do just that. In the context of its reliance upon the ‘balancing test,’ the Court’s disclaimer of ‘any view upon the wisdom of the State’s action’ here thus seems to me to be wholly inconsistent with the only ground upon which it has decided this case.

Nor can the majority escape from this inconsistency on the ground that the ‘balancing test’ deals only with the question of the importance of the existence of governmental power as a general matter without regard to the importance of its exercise in a particular case. For in Barenblatt v. United States the same majority made it clear that the ‘balancing test’ is to be applied to the facts of each particular case (360 U.S. 109, 79 S.Ct. 1093): ‘Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown.’ Thus the Court not only ‘balances’ the respective values of two competing policies as a general matter, but also ‘balances’ the wisdom of those policies in ‘the particular circumstances shown.’ Thus, the Court has reserved to itself the power to permit or deny abridgement of First Amendment freedoms according to its own view of whether repression or freedom is the wiser governmental policy under the circumstances of each case.

The effect of the Court’s ‘balancing’ here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the ‘right of revolution’ nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the ‘right of revolution’ when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’ This country’s freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War.

Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the ‘right of revolution’ was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo’s belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those.

In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the ‘right of revolution’ should be exercised. Quite the contrary, the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo’s part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country’s freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo’s position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself.

This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France -men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots -men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party -men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.

But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free’

‘ if a government gets bad enough, the people have a ‘right of revolution.’ ~ George Anastaplo

That’s why I like you George… what you just said right up there… you’re a principled man and a patriot… you’re a fiesty guy indeed as the following exchange points out…

This is from the transcript of the committee questioning George…

‘Commissioner Mitchell: When you say ‘believe in revolution,’ you don’t limit that revolution to an overthrow of a particular political party or a political government by means of an election process or other political means?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: I mean actual use of force.

‘Commissioner Mitchell: You mean to go as far as necessary?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: As far as Washington did, for instance.

‘Commissioner Mitchell: So that would it be fair to say that you believe the end result would justify any means that were used?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: No, the means proportionate to the particular end in sight.

‘Commissioner Mitchell: Well, is there any difference from your answer and my question?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: Did you ask-

‘Commissioner Mitchell: I asked you whether you thought that you believe that if a change, or overthrow of the government were justified, that any means could be used to accomplish that end.

‘Mr. Anastaplo: Now, let’s say in this positive concrete situation-I am not quite sure what it means in abstract.

‘Commissioner Mitchell: I will ask you in detail. You believe that assuming the government should be overthrown, in your opinion, that you and others of like mind would be justified in raising a company of men with military equipment and proceed to take over the government of the United States, of the State of Illinois?

‘By shaking your head do you mean yes?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: If you get to the point where overthrow is necessary, then overthrow is justified. It just means that you overthrow the government by force.

‘Commissioner Mitchell: And would that also include in your mind justification for putting a spy into the administrative department, one or another of the administrative departments of the United States or the government of the State of Illinois?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: If you got to the point you think the government should be overthrown, I think that would be a legitimate means.

‘Commissioner Mitchell: There isn’t any difference in your mind in the propriety of using a gun or using a spy?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: I think spies have been used in quite honorable causes.

‘Commissioner Mitchell: Your answer is, you do think so?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: Yes.

‘Commissioner Baker: Let me ask you a question. Are you aware of the fact that the Department of Justice has a list of what are described as subversive organizations?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: Yes.

‘Commissioner Baker: Have you ever seen that list?

‘Mr. Anastaplo: Yes.

‘Commissioner Baker: Are you a member of any organization that is listed on the Attorney General’s list, to your knowledge? (No answer.) Just to keep you from having to work so hard mentally on it, what organizations-give me all the organizations you are affiliated with or are a member of. (No answer.) That oughtn’t to be too hard.

‘Mr. Anastaplo: Do you believe that is a legitimate question?

‘Commissioner Baker: Yes, I do. We are inquiring into not only your character, but your fitness, under Rule 58. We don’t compel you to answer it. Are you a member of the Communist Party?’

George lost the case at the US Supreme Court but it was his principled approach to not answering the question in the first place and his ten year battle to overcome the ramifications of that refusal that earned him the respect of many who respect a person who lives a principle centered life.

He never would practice law, but he would become a passionate and inspiring teacher according to many.

He’s been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize twelve times.

And they sat him down for dinner next to ‘Viewminder’ a street photographer… who was only nominated for the Peace Prize once… by himself.

Crowned ‘The Socrates of Chicago’ George has written more books than some of the people I know have read…

"He has written books and articles analyzing the influence of Greek literature on American politics, on the Thinker as Artist, and the Artist as Thinker, on the O. J. Simpson trial, on lights at Wrigley Field, on McCarthyism, on hate speech, on lawyers, on judges, on the Bible, on ethics, on Abraham Lincoln, on the remodeling of Soldier field, and I have only touched the surface of his eclecticism. ~ ‘George Anastaplo’ by Abner Mikva

George Anastaplo I admire you.

You saw something that was wrong and you refused to be a part of it…

Even if that meant it would create difficulty in your life and in your pursuit of the career that you studied so long and hard for.

You stood true to your convictions.

You stood up for what you believe in.

You never backed down.

You’re an inspiring man and a patriot George Anastaplo.

They outta give out a prize for that.

Faces on the street
Chicago 7.9.11
35mm 1.8 SOOC with a ping of contrast

7.20.11

Broad Stripes & Bright Stars
Keep Your Home Secure
Image by Jason A. Samfield
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Best when viewed in LIGHTBOX.

If you like my photo(s), please add me as a Flickr contact!
I promise not to disappoint!

Follow Me (Elsewhere Across The Internet)
TwitterFacebookDiggStumbleUponYouTubeGoogle BuzzMySpaceVimeoFriendfeedMixxPicasaYelpRedditNewsvineNetvibesFlickrOrkutdeviantARTLast .fmLinkedInBloggerSoundCloud

The Cloudscapes
(Cloudscapes – Digital Artwork Blog)
Syncretic Divine
(Geopolitics & Philosophy Blog)
Harmonic Future
(Electrosymphonic Music – Online Radio Station)

Species Identification Group on Reddit
(A crowdsourced method of identifying unknown species of any organism through discussion with up or down votes and comments from tons of people including a bunch of biologists.)
Artistic Photography Group on Reddit
(Showcase your favorite artistic photography from your peers, pros, amateurs, or even yourself.)

How to Install Your Blinds

5011635555_d58f131981_m

Alright folks, so we are at the point where you have purchased your blinds and are ready to install them. I am assuming that you have bought pre-measured blinds otherwise we have some problems. Installing blinds yourself is a smart route to take. Most blinds are quite simple to install, however hiring someone to do it for you may save some headaches but not some money! So follow the introductory guide below to help give you some pointers on where to start with your installation.

I suggest opening the box and placing all the little pieces such as brackets, screws and valance clips in front of you and at arms length to ensure maximum smoothness!

The tools for blinds installation are:

•  A tape measure
•  A pencil
•  A screwdriver
•  A drill
•  A level

Fist of all, the type of blind you have purchased has been made to be mounted on the inside or outside of your window. The instructions below are for inner mounted blinds only. With the help of your level, hold up your blinds inside the window casing, and make sure its level. Mark the window casing with your pencil where the blinds are placed. As well as a little past the edge of the blind,(about 1/8 inch). The pencil marks are the guides for your brackets.

Secondly, you now need to drill holes over each marking which are called your pilot holes. Then screw in the left and right brackets into your pilot holes. The screws are normally provided with your installation kit, although depending on the type of material you are screwing into, different screws may be required. Once the pilot holes are drilled, drill in your brackets. Note: You can rub some bar soap onto your screws so they will go in more easily. Also, depending on the size of your blinds, you may need to install a support brackets in the middle of the blinds (this will be specified in the instructions received with your blinds). The blinds will usually exceed a legth of 72 inches in order to require a support bracket. Installing this support is an important step. Over time and with daily usage, the blinds may sag in the middle or wear down the structure of the outer brackets and break. So learn your lesson now, install the support bracket! To make it easier, align the head rail within the brackets, since this will help you place the support bracket in its proper place and screw it in.

Afterwards, the valance clips are the last item to install. Space them apart evenly along the head rail. Do not place them over the blind slats or cords. Clip the head rail in place by snapping close the brackets, and finally place the valance into the valance clips.

And you are done! Give yourself a pat on the back and go have a drink!

Mini blinds are a great way to decorate and personalize your home. For more tips on maintaining and designing with your window coverings please visit http://www.yourblindsspot.com.

Roman Blinds Installation Guide

9679812782_f9930e2869_m

Putting that crafty hands at work…

Installing Roman blinds is something you can do yourself, using nothing more that your hands, a few useful tips and someone to keep you company. When you purchased your window blinds you’ve probably encountered with not so simple installation guide which came with your Roman blinds and made you doubt yourself and your skills. Well, in spite of all the pictures and complicated words, know that it really is not that hard and you can do it yourself. The hardest part is probably making some decisions on whether you want your blinds installed on the inside or the outside of the window frame which will determine the mounting process. What comes after can be performed with the help of this Roman blinds installation guide.

The ones that already purchased a Roman blind probably already know what follows, but for those still deciding on which window treatment to choose, there are a few things to know about Roman blinds. They are basically a piece of fabric folded into pleats and operated by a chain. They can be flat (lying flat when pulled down) or hobbled with some fabric added which overlaps when the blinds are lowered. Roman blinds market offers a wide range of different materials like silk, cotton and linen as the most popular options. But that is not all. You could opt for simple single-colored blinds or choose some with interesting, colorful patterns if you want to add some eccentricity. Finally the most important option in the light of installing Roman blinds is that they can be hang with an inside or an outside mount.

Choose, measure and go!

Installing your Roman blinds includes a few simple steps given below.

As mentioned before, the first thing you will need to do is decide whether you want the blinds to be installed with an inside or an outside mount. Inside mount implies that the blinds will be installed inside the window frame and cover solely the window glass, while the outside mount is set on both sides of the wall, covering not only the window frame but also a part of the wall. This will not only define the installation process but also affect the overall look of your window and your room. However, this is solely up to you.
Now, let’s make the necessary measurements. If you have opted for an inside mount measure the top, middle and bottom of your window, using measuring tape. Make sure to be very precise and check the measurements twice in order of determining the right size. This is very important since it can affect your Roman blind functionality. Add a few inches and you will not be able to mount the blind inside the window frame or subtract a few inches and the blind will not cover the whole window, leaving it exposed and unprotected. With an inside mount write down the smallest width. Also measure the length of the window since it will determine the length of the blind. If an outside mount is your choice, you will need to make the measurements on both sides of the wall around the window frame. Here you are free to decide how far apart you want to place the brackets and thus choose how wide will your Roman blind be.
Always purchase the blind after performing the previous measurements, all according to the given results.
Now it is time to install the brackets that will hold the blind in place. Whether your are installing the blind with an inside or the outside mount, make sure that there is no contact with the window frame top and that there are no obstacles that will prevent you from raising or lowering the blind. Level up the brackets on both sides of the window and attach them onto the window frame, using 2 inches wooden screws (inside mount) or plumb them into the wall using wall anchors, toggle bolts or fastener screws (outside mount).

Finally, after installing the Roman blind, pull the cord in order of lowering and raising the blind and making sure it works properly. Consider your installation job done.

Visit Discount Blind Centre for more info on Roman Blinds. Our mission is to offer quality window blinds at discounted prices.

Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Mark_Row

Ultimate Guide To Home Security And Alarm Systems

homesafety

Ultimate Guide To Home Security And Alarm Systems
Ultimate Guide To Home Security And Alarm Systems
Home Security, Alarm Systems, Security Cameras, Security Video Systems, Door Security, Locks And Much More, Secret Hidden Bookcase Door How To Build Plans, Home Security Guide Designed To Protect Homeowners And Real Estate. Baby Child Safety Guide.
Ultimate Guide To Home Security And Alarm Systems

Window Coverings for Home

14767554642_69cfeb8ccc_m

Window coverings are in abundance when searching online. Shutters, blinds, curtains, drapes, or shades in all sizes and colors are available. Wooden blinds, shutters and shades, seem to be the most popular with most consumers. These allow light to open up a room, or close light off to the room completely.

For those who may live in a climate that is warm with abundant sunshine, window film is also available. This window film will help to cool off your home, and can cut your energy costs somewhat. This is a bonus to those living in the states that may have to run the air conditioning all summer long. Absorbing solar heat, this film will eliminate sun damage to furniture, carpets and the wood floors in your home. This is also a bonus as fading happens over time, with the damaging UV rays of the sun. Both residential and commercial film is available and applied directly to the inside of the window surfaces. This tough window film will also hold shattered glass in place. This can help protect your family in those states that have the destructive weather factor going on. Glare is reduced, and hot spots are eliminated as well.

Plantation shutters are an excellent choice for any home, and will also add quality and classic beauty. These plantation shades must be custom made to fit each window. So keep in mind that you must allow the craftsmen to come to your home for the correct measurements of each window that you add plantation shades too. Plantation shutters can be manufactured in two inch slats, three inch slats, or four inch slats. This will allow you to view the outside when opened. They can be made of one hundred percent wood and the color of your choice. A composite faux wood is also available for the ‘green’ conscious world of today. Composite faux wood has the look of genuine wood, and is the best for filtering out the heat, cold and moisture. These faux wood window coverings are guaranteed to last a lifetime. Either choice is unique and will set off your décor, no matter what kind of wood or color you choose. Hand held remotes are also available for those who may want to program the shutters. With just the touch of a button, you can open them in the daytime, and close them at night. What a great feature this is. The plantation shutter is the most desired of all window coverings, and with the added hand held remote feature, you can’t go wrong.

Blinds and shades can be measured easily and do not require a craftsman to come into your home. They are perfect for the ‘do it yourself’ person. They are probably the most inexpensive way to go, when you want beautiful, long lasting window coverings. They can be fitted on the inside frame of the windows, or the outside frame, depending on your choice and the desired effect. There are many styles to choose from for your home. These can be manufactured of vinyl, and also in any kind of wood or fabric desired. There are many varieties of colors available to the average consumer. All it takes is a bit of patience, and a bit of creativity.

A person can now turn their home into any inspired design with today’s window coverings. Gone are the days when we only had drapes or curtains to choose from. Custom drapes are available as well, and sometimes they can be the best fit for your home. It is certainly a nice advantage having a variety of choices in window coverings.

Jay has been writing for over 10 years about home decor and interior design. Through his discovery he writes mostly about blinds, shades, bedding, and rugs.

How to Keep Your Home Secure

5337874697_2d58b062da_m

Security camera system is very essential for the public sector, compared with the other sector, since this camera electronic needed to maintain public order in a country. Required for closed circuit television are much higher because people want security. Viewing the current state of a country, we can say that the monitoring system is required for each field. Control system allows you to see places when you are away.

Implementation of security at home will be a nice idea to make your home safe. Not only will watch over the security of your home, but the safety of your family. After the installation of these systems, your home would be monitored while you are away and is easily alerted by the police. Security systems are very efficient that everyone wants to have one installed in their homes. One of the most effective systems includes surveillance cameras.

These alarms are useful for installation in your home and it can be an excellent investment. You can be taken your ease that when you are away, your family and other important things in the house will be safe from manipulation. There are several factors to consider in achieving the best home security system and the options are really a lot of choice for effective home protection you need. You should consider whether you want to prevent thieves from breaking even closer to your door, or if you want the full or partial area of the house to see.

In general, there are consists of two types of alarm security systems, indoor and outdoor systems. Indoor alarm systems will monitor in the house. These include the establishment of control devices for doors, windows and walls of the house you and the whole area in case of intrusion alerts. On the other hand, external alarm systems cover the entire surface of your home, including garage lawn, garden or front. These systems can be useful in preventing intruders away from the house because the alarm systems to detect from the outside. But what if some animals walk around the perimeter? Manufacturers have made changes to the system’s neighbors and the authorities of error.

There are special offers for surveillance of the house on the market and some are affordable. Keep your home safe and give your family the best protection they deserve. The number of cases of intrusion has increased. To ensure your alarm system installed well, you should purchase a reliable home security companies. Make sure they are licensed and certified and have the best performance of alarm for protection.

Find More Detail About Security Cameras and Wholesale IP Cameras  on http://www.epathchina.com

Related Keep Your Home Secure Articles

Home Security

The James City County Police Department demonstrates a home security survey to show citizens how to keep their homes safe. If you’d like an officer to come o…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

© 2018 Tradesman In Australia Reviews. All Rights Reserved. Theme WP Castle by Saeed Salam.