![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Ammon-Bundy-best.jpg\")
Burns, Oregon – January 05, 2016 : Ammon Bundy, the leader of a group calling itself Citizens for Constitutional Freedom which was recently protesting the occupation of State Land by the Federal Government is now in jail in Portland Oregon. Here he speaks to members of the media from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo by Justin Sullivan\/Getty Images)<\/p><\/div>\n
\u00a0Time to End Federal Control of\u00a0State Land<\/strong><\/h1>\nBy Scott Rohter, February 2016<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
It is not by coincidence that Article IV Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads as follows: “CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF TERRITORY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES.”\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0It\u00a0then goes on to say\u00a0that “Congress shall\u00a0have the power to make all needful rules and regulations regarding this property.”<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nDisposal of\u00a0land acquired by the Federal Government is the\u00a0first thing mentioned and the principle\u00a0objective of the Property Clause. <\/span><\/p>\nCongress does not have the Constitutional authority to\u00a0retain control\u00a0of 700 million acres of land in twelve Western States\u00a0for what has been in some cases more than a hundred years\u00a0after they\u00a0were admitted to the Union. <\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0solution to this\u00a0gross\u00a0violation of the Equal Footing Principle\u00a0is clearly to\u00a0turn over\u00a0all land acquired by the Federal Government since 1850 to\u00a0the twelve States from\u00a0which it was taken through\u00a0various Enabling Acts.<\/span><\/p>\nPublic land\u00a0must be returned to State and local control\u00a0and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976\u00a0should be repealed\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nIt must be done in a manner consistent with\u00a0the Constitution\u00a0as well as all applicable\u00a0State and local land use laws.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"Ford,Gerald\"](\"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/FordGerald-256x300.jpg\")
President Ford signed the Federal Land Policy Management Act into law.<\/p><\/div>\n
In 1976 Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act.\u00a0This legislation\u00a0formally repealed the Homestead Act of 1862 and\u00a0put into practice the government’s current policy of retaining control over all\u00a0public land. Since then the Federal government has not issued any more\u00a0land grants. \u00a0The FLPMA was signed into law by President Gerald Ford during his last year in office, but it was proposed and drawn up\u00a0during the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. It delegated authority to administer public land to the Bureau of Land Management which had been created just thirty years earlier in 1946 by the merger of two\u00a0completely different\u00a0governmental agencies who were often at odds with each other.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service were frequently at loggerheads over how to manage\u00a0federal land\u00a0so\u00a0after they were merged to form the Bureau of Land\u00a0Management Congress established the Public Land Law Review Commission in 1964 to come up with a general consensus\u00a0on\u00a0what to do with all of the public land that Congress had amassed since 1850.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In its report which was submitted to Congress in 1970 the Public Land Law Review Commission proposed a\u00a0radically new policy for managing public land. It was a total break from the past. The Commission supported the idea of retaining control over all\u00a0remaining public lands instead of disposing of them as\u00a0the\u00a0government\u00a0is required to do\u00a0under the Constitution.\u00a0 In its report to Congress the Commission stated, \u201cWe … recommend that the policy of large-scale disposal of public lands reflected by the majority of statutes in force today be revised, and that future disposal should be of only those lands that will achieve maximum benefit for the general public in non-Federal ownership, while retaining in Federal ownership those\u00a0lands\u00a0whose values must be preserved so that they can be used and enjoyed by all Americans.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>While such language might sound\u00a0good to some,\u00a0in\u00a0 reality the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to\u00a0own vast amounts of State land no matter how high and lofty the\u00a0language\u00a0may sound. The Constitution is quite explicit about\u00a0how much\u00a0State land the government can own, how it has to be acquired,\u00a0and for what purposes it can be used. The Commission\u00a0proposed a\u00a0radically different\u00a0method of administering public land\u00a0which was just as permanent as it is unconstitutional.\u00a0\u00a0The recommendation of the Public Land Law Review Commission in 1970 prepared the way for the passage of the Federal Land Policy Management Act\u00a0of 1976 which then codified into law the government’s new policy of retaining control\u00a0over all public land.<\/p>\n![\"Oneil](\"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Oneil-Tip-and-Ronald-Reagan-300x200.jpg\")
President Reagan and House SpeakerTip O’neill<\/p><\/div>\n
Three years later in 1979 six Western States joined\u00a0forces to demand the return of all federally administered lands within their\u00a0borders… Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming either passed legislation or filed lawsuits against the Federal government in an effort to\u00a0wrest control of State land\u00a0from the Bureau of Land Management\u00a0and the United States Forest Service..\u00a0 Their decision to challenge\u00a0Federal \u00a0control\u00a0over vast\u00a0amounts of\u00a0State land was called the Sagebrush Rebellion.<\/p>\n
The legal\u00a0challenge presented by the six Western States had\u00a0no\u00a0impact\u00a0at all on the administration of public land during the Carter Administration,\u00a0but in 1979 Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan indicated that he was sympathetic to their goals. After his\u00a0inauguration in 1980\u00a0President Reagan\u00a0tried to facilitate\u00a0a\u00a0transfer of public land to State control, but his efforts were\u00a0blocked by a Democrat controlled Congress\u00a0led by Speaker of the House, Tip O’neill. The\u00a0Speaker was\u00a0more concerned about the legal threats emanating from the environmentalist lobby and about a very nasty reduction in contributions to the DNC if he were to go along with the President than he was about implementing the policy goals of the Reagan Administration\u00a0 The only thing that President Reagan could do was to relax\u00a0of\u00a0some of the most onerous rules\u00a0of the Bureau of Land Management through the use of executive order.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Constitution clearly states in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 that Congress\u00a0shall have the power to dispose of\u00a0“territory or\u00a0other property belonging to the\u00a0United\u00a0States”. <\/em>Except for\u00a0precisely 100 square miles of land composing the District of Columbia (Article I Section 8 Clause 17) that is\u00a0exactly what Congress is supposed to do. It is supposed to dispose of\u00a0all other\u00a0property that it acquires unless it\u00a0is necessary to build\u00a0forts, or\u00a0ports, or\u00a0post offices,\u00a0or “other needful buildings”.\u00a0<\/em>The power to dispose of land and property does not rest in the White House. It\u00a0resides in the Halls of Congress, and members of Congress\u00a0shall have the\u00a0power to make all\u00a0of the laws and regulations\u00a0which are necessary to\u00a0administer\u00a0this\u00a0property until such time as it is\u00a0disposed of, but make no mistake about it… This land\u00a0must be disposed of. Congress\u00a0is not allowed to\u00a0delay the inevitable disposition of this land indefinitely.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It may not\u00a0retain control\u00a0of 700 million acres of\u00a0State land\u00a0in perpetuity.\u00a0\u00a0Congress is only allowed to manage\u00a0public land until such time as it is properly disposed of.<\/p>\nEvery year we see what\u00a0happens when Congress manages too much public land. Much of it burns to the ground every summer during\u00a0fire season. The only solution\u00a0to\u00a0Congressional mis-management of public land is\u00a0to\u00a0turn\u00a0the land over to State control. Only so much Congressional management of public land that can\u00a0fit through the rather vague parameters of the General Welfare Clause\u00a0or the extremely strict criteria of the Property Clause and the Enclave Clause. \u00a0<\/p>\n
There is no Constitutional authority for the\u00a0United States\u00a0Government to retain control over\u00a0fifty percent of\u00a0the land in twelve Western States.\u00a0The Property Clause states that Congress has the power to dispose of the land, not the power to\u00a0control it forever like it is\u00a0doing under the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976.<\/p>\n
![\"Lyndon](\"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Lyndon-Johnson-300x300.jpg\")
Lyndon Baines Johnson under whose Administration the unconstitutional Federal Land Policy Management Act was written.<\/p><\/div>\n
The disturbing legacy of the Public Land Law Review Commission and the Federal Land Policy Management Act\u00a0is a cause of so much concern not only because it is unconstitutional but because\u00a0so much of our precious resources are just going up in smoke every year because of\u00a0federal mismanagement. The problem of what to do with\u00a0 these\u00a0lands is the subject of\u00a0a growing national debate as we saw recently in Oregon during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and in Nevada at the Bunkerville\u00a0Standoff Trial.<\/p>\n
Twenty-five percent\u00a0of\u00a0 all the land in the United States, and nearly\u00a0fifty percent\u00a0of\u00a0the land west of the Rocky Mountains is\u00a0controlled by\u00a0Congress.\u00a0\u00a0Ninety percent\u00a0of the State of Nevada… almost\u00a0seventy percent\u00a0of the State of Alaska… It is all administered by just two Congressional agencies. Property rights, grazing rights, and water rights\u00a0which date all the way back to before the\u00a0Bureau of Land Management was even created are\u00a0being invalidated\u00a0and ignored. Ranchers are being forced to go out of business.\u00a0Some are being\u00a0prosecuted and thrown in jail.\u00a0\u00a0 One rancher who refused to sign his BLM grazing contracts was even shot to death by law enforcement officers for believing that the Federal government\u00a0should follow the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It is\u00a0time to return State land to State control. Its time to correct the historic injustice that was perpetrated on the last twelve States to join the Union.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"hammond-family-protest-dwight-hammond-b-01022016\"](\"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/hammond-family-protest-dwight-hammond-b-01022016-300x169.jpg\")
Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond whose re-incaraceration under an obscure federal anti-terrorism act sparked a firestorm of protest.<\/p><\/div>\n
As a result of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge it is\u00a0only proper that Oregon\u00a0play a leading role in this effort to wrest control of State land from the Federal government. Afterall fifty percent of Oregon is controlled by Congress.\u00a0 What possible reason would the State of Oregon have for not wanting to\u00a0assert its\u00a0own sovereignty over its own land? Some say that Oregon does not want to be responsible for fighting fires on public land.\u00a0 If that is true then let me say that the Oregon Department of Forestry could always let\u00a0our forests\u00a0burn to the ground just like the United States\u00a0Forest Service\u00a0did\u00a0in 2003 and again in 2017. At least what is left after the fires are out would belong to the people of Oregon.\u00a0 The unconstitutional occupation and administration of 50% of Oregon by the Federal Government must come to an end\u00a0and it must\u00a0come to an end in\u00a0eleven other Western States too.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"Arizona](\"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/burns-Oregon-photos-Lavoy-Finnicum-300x200.jpg\")
Arizona rancher Robert Lavoy Finicum was shot three times in the back for challenging the Federal Government’s authority to occupy State land.<\/p><\/div>\n
THIS IS A LINK TO A NATIONAL PETITION TO RETURN CONTROL OF\u00a0 FEDERAL LAND ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM TO THE STATES AND COUNTIES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE. PLEASE SIGN IT AND SHARE IT. YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE PLACED ON A MAILING LIST. http:\/\/www.ipetitions.com\/petition\/congressional-petition-regarding-federal-lands<\/a><\/p>\nHalf of the land in Oregon is controlled by the Federal Government. If you live in Oregon and you would like to see the\u00a0control of Federal land returned to Oregon Counties and\u00a0to its people please sign this petition here at http:\/\/www.ipetitions.com\/petition\/oregons-federally-administered-lands\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Additional Reading<\/strong><\/p>\nhttps:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-fix\/wp\/2016\/01\/04\/even-sagebrush-rebel-ronald-reagan-couldnt-change-federal-land-use-in-the-west\/<\/a><\/p>\nhttp:\/\/www.hcn.org\/articles\/utah-bill-would-push-land-transfer-debate-to-federal-court<\/a><\/p>\nhttps:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sagebrush_Rebellion<\/a><\/p>\n
Disposal of\u00a0land acquired by the Federal Government is the\u00a0first thing mentioned and the principle\u00a0objective of the Property Clause. <\/span><\/p>\n Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to\u00a0retain control\u00a0of 700 million acres of land in twelve Western States\u00a0for what has been in some cases more than a hundred years\u00a0after they\u00a0were admitted to the Union. <\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0solution to this\u00a0gross\u00a0violation of the Equal Footing Principle\u00a0is clearly to\u00a0turn over\u00a0all land acquired by the Federal Government since 1850 to\u00a0the twelve States from\u00a0which it was taken through\u00a0various Enabling Acts.<\/span><\/p>\n Public land\u00a0must be returned to State and local control\u00a0and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976\u00a0should be repealed\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It must be done in a manner consistent with\u00a0the Constitution\u00a0as well as all applicable\u00a0State and local land use laws.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n President Ford signed the Federal Land Policy Management Act into law.<\/p><\/div>\n In 1976 Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act.\u00a0This legislation\u00a0formally repealed the Homestead Act of 1862 and\u00a0put into practice the government’s current policy of retaining control over all\u00a0public land. Since then the Federal government has not issued any more\u00a0land grants. \u00a0The FLPMA was signed into law by President Gerald Ford during his last year in office, but it was proposed and drawn up\u00a0during the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. It delegated authority to administer public land to the Bureau of Land Management which had been created just thirty years earlier in 1946 by the merger of two\u00a0completely different\u00a0governmental agencies who were often at odds with each other.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service were frequently at loggerheads over how to manage\u00a0federal land\u00a0so\u00a0after they were merged to form the Bureau of Land\u00a0Management Congress established the Public Land Law Review Commission in 1964 to come up with a general consensus\u00a0on\u00a0what to do with all of the public land that Congress had amassed since 1850.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n In its report which was submitted to Congress in 1970 the Public Land Law Review Commission proposed a\u00a0radically new policy for managing public land. It was a total break from the past. The Commission supported the idea of retaining control over all\u00a0remaining public lands instead of disposing of them as\u00a0the\u00a0government\u00a0is required to do\u00a0under the Constitution.\u00a0 In its report to Congress the Commission stated, \u201cWe … recommend that the policy of large-scale disposal of public lands reflected by the majority of statutes in force today be revised, and that future disposal should be of only those lands that will achieve maximum benefit for the general public in non-Federal ownership, while retaining in Federal ownership those\u00a0lands\u00a0whose values must be preserved so that they can be used and enjoyed by all Americans.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>While such language might sound\u00a0good to some,\u00a0in\u00a0 reality the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to\u00a0own vast amounts of State land no matter how high and lofty the\u00a0language\u00a0may sound. The Constitution is quite explicit about\u00a0how much\u00a0State land the government can own, how it has to be acquired,\u00a0and for what purposes it can be used. The Commission\u00a0proposed a\u00a0radically different\u00a0method of administering public land\u00a0which was just as permanent as it is unconstitutional.\u00a0\u00a0The recommendation of the Public Land Law Review Commission in 1970 prepared the way for the passage of the Federal Land Policy Management Act\u00a0of 1976 which then codified into law the government’s new policy of retaining control\u00a0over all public land.<\/p>\n President Reagan and House SpeakerTip O’neill<\/p><\/div>\n Three years later in 1979 six Western States joined\u00a0forces to demand the return of all federally administered lands within their\u00a0borders… Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming either passed legislation or filed lawsuits against the Federal government in an effort to\u00a0wrest control of State land\u00a0from the Bureau of Land Management\u00a0and the United States Forest Service..\u00a0 Their decision to challenge\u00a0Federal \u00a0control\u00a0over vast\u00a0amounts of\u00a0State land was called the Sagebrush Rebellion.<\/p>\n The legal\u00a0challenge presented by the six Western States had\u00a0no\u00a0impact\u00a0at all on the administration of public land during the Carter Administration,\u00a0but in 1979 Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan indicated that he was sympathetic to their goals. After his\u00a0inauguration in 1980\u00a0President Reagan\u00a0tried to facilitate\u00a0a\u00a0transfer of public land to State control, but his efforts were\u00a0blocked by a Democrat controlled Congress\u00a0led by Speaker of the House, Tip O’neill. The\u00a0Speaker was\u00a0more concerned about the legal threats emanating from the environmentalist lobby and about a very nasty reduction in contributions to the DNC if he were to go along with the President than he was about implementing the policy goals of the Reagan Administration\u00a0 The only thing that President Reagan could do was to relax\u00a0of\u00a0some of the most onerous rules\u00a0of the Bureau of Land Management through the use of executive order.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Constitution clearly states in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 that Congress\u00a0shall have the power to dispose of\u00a0“territory or\u00a0other property belonging to the\u00a0United\u00a0States”. <\/em>Except for\u00a0precisely 100 square miles of land composing the District of Columbia (Article I Section 8 Clause 17) that is\u00a0exactly what Congress is supposed to do. It is supposed to dispose of\u00a0all other\u00a0property that it acquires unless it\u00a0is necessary to build\u00a0forts, or\u00a0ports, or\u00a0post offices,\u00a0or “other needful buildings”.\u00a0<\/em>The power to dispose of land and property does not rest in the White House. It\u00a0resides in the Halls of Congress, and members of Congress\u00a0shall have the\u00a0power to make all\u00a0of the laws and regulations\u00a0which are necessary to\u00a0administer\u00a0this\u00a0property until such time as it is\u00a0disposed of, but make no mistake about it… This land\u00a0must be disposed of. Congress\u00a0is not allowed to\u00a0delay the inevitable disposition of this land indefinitely.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It may not\u00a0retain control\u00a0of 700 million acres of\u00a0State land\u00a0in perpetuity.\u00a0\u00a0Congress is only allowed to manage\u00a0public land until such time as it is properly disposed of.<\/p>\n Every year we see what\u00a0happens when Congress manages too much public land. Much of it burns to the ground every summer during\u00a0fire season. The only solution\u00a0to\u00a0Congressional mis-management of public land is\u00a0to\u00a0turn\u00a0the land over to State control. Only so much Congressional management of public land that can\u00a0fit through the rather vague parameters of the General Welfare Clause\u00a0or the extremely strict criteria of the Property Clause and the Enclave Clause. \u00a0<\/p>\n There is no Constitutional authority for the\u00a0United States\u00a0Government to retain control over\u00a0fifty percent of\u00a0the land in twelve Western States.\u00a0The Property Clause states that Congress has the power to dispose of the land, not the power to\u00a0control it forever like it is\u00a0doing under the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976.<\/p>\n Lyndon Baines Johnson under whose Administration the unconstitutional Federal Land Policy Management Act was written.<\/p><\/div>\n The disturbing legacy of the Public Land Law Review Commission and the Federal Land Policy Management Act\u00a0is a cause of so much concern not only because it is unconstitutional but because\u00a0so much of our precious resources are just going up in smoke every year because of\u00a0federal mismanagement. The problem of what to do with\u00a0 these\u00a0lands is the subject of\u00a0a growing national debate as we saw recently in Oregon during the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and in Nevada at the Bunkerville\u00a0Standoff Trial.<\/p>\n Twenty-five percent\u00a0of\u00a0 all the land in the United States, and nearly\u00a0fifty percent\u00a0of\u00a0the land west of the Rocky Mountains is\u00a0controlled by\u00a0Congress.\u00a0\u00a0Ninety percent\u00a0of the State of Nevada… almost\u00a0seventy percent\u00a0of the State of Alaska… It is all administered by just two Congressional agencies. Property rights, grazing rights, and water rights\u00a0which date all the way back to before the\u00a0Bureau of Land Management was even created are\u00a0being invalidated\u00a0and ignored. Ranchers are being forced to go out of business.\u00a0Some are being\u00a0prosecuted and thrown in jail.\u00a0\u00a0 One rancher who refused to sign his BLM grazing contracts was even shot to death by law enforcement officers for believing that the Federal government\u00a0should follow the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It is\u00a0time to return State land to State control. Its time to correct the historic injustice that was perpetrated on the last twelve States to join the Union.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond whose re-incaraceration under an obscure federal anti-terrorism act sparked a firestorm of protest.<\/p><\/div>\n As a result of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge it is\u00a0only proper that Oregon\u00a0play a leading role in this effort to wrest control of State land from the Federal government. Afterall fifty percent of Oregon is controlled by Congress.\u00a0 What possible reason would the State of Oregon have for not wanting to\u00a0assert its\u00a0own sovereignty over its own land? Some say that Oregon does not want to be responsible for fighting fires on public land.\u00a0 If that is true then let me say that the Oregon Department of Forestry could always let\u00a0our forests\u00a0burn to the ground just like the United States\u00a0Forest Service\u00a0did\u00a0in 2003 and again in 2017. At least what is left after the fires are out would belong to the people of Oregon.\u00a0 The unconstitutional occupation and administration of 50% of Oregon by the Federal Government must come to an end\u00a0and it must\u00a0come to an end in\u00a0eleven other Western States too.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Arizona rancher Robert Lavoy Finicum was shot three times in the back for challenging the Federal Government’s authority to occupy State land.<\/p><\/div>\n THIS IS A LINK TO A NATIONAL PETITION TO RETURN CONTROL OF\u00a0 FEDERAL LAND ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM TO THE STATES AND COUNTIES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE. PLEASE SIGN IT AND SHARE IT. YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE PLACED ON A MAILING LIST. http:\/\/www.ipetitions.com\/petition\/congressional-petition-regarding-federal-lands<\/a><\/p>\n Half of the land in Oregon is controlled by the Federal Government. If you live in Oregon and you would like to see the\u00a0control of Federal land returned to Oregon Counties and\u00a0to its people please sign this petition here at http:\/\/www.ipetitions.com\/petition\/oregons-federally-administered-lands\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Additional Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-fix\/wp\/2016\/01\/04\/even-sagebrush-rebel-ronald-reagan-couldnt-change-federal-land-use-in-the-west\/<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.hcn.org\/articles\/utah-bill-would-push-land-transfer-debate-to-federal-court<\/a><\/p>\n https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sagebrush_Rebellion<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/FordGerald.jpg\")