Month: January 2019

President Trump’s Rose Garden declaration of an end to the partial shutdown was a tactical retreat, a rejection of a Little Big Horn strategy. He found himself in a no-win situation, and rather than bear unacceptable costs, has redefined the contest on better terms: sending the issue to a House and Senate conference committee charged with coming up with a deal that prevents a resumption of the shutdown, and provides border security, something that Democrats say they believe is important.

Making the best of a bad situation. Rose Garden speech January 25, 2019

Cropped from Fox News, via YouTube

It is important that Nancy Pelosi declined to rule out funding for a physical barrier. We do not know what was said in the process of reaching an agreement to re-start the normal operations of the federal givenrment for the next 21 days.

Democrats naturally are gloating, calling it a surrender and admonishing Trump to “learn his lesson” and acknowledge his defeat by the wise and all-knowing Nancy Pelosi.  This certainly gives them a sugar high while providing evidence for future use that their priority is humiliating Trump rather than attending to the needs of border security.

Nonetheless, as President Trump correctly noted in the Rose Garden address, it was an “agreement.” The Dems agreed to procedural rules that can be used to make the case for border barrier construction. The deal will be hashed out in the conference committee, which will then submit the same legislation to both Houses of Congress, with the 21-day clock ticking. Either chamber can modify the legislation, but that happens under the gun of the ticking clock.

Trump’s stonewall on the shutdown had to end because a choke point had been discovered by the opposition (a group that includes Congressional Democrats and government employee unions along with the media): commercial aviation. It was obvious when the Air Traffic Controllers demonstrated their ability to stymie air travel at the nation’s busiest airports that President Trump, having declared ownership of the shutdown, would be blamed for strangling the economy, and was on the hook for any air traffic control disaster that might, God forbid, happen. The Executive VP of the Air Traffic Controllers Association went on CNN to blame Trump for delays and safety issues. With the Super Bowl next weekend in the city with the world’s busiest airport, not only would business and family travel be impaired, the functioning of the nation’s premier sporting event was in peril.  

It may be coincidence, but this kill shot job action occurred in the wake of extraordinary signs that House Democrats were wavering in their support for Pelosi’s “not one dollar” opposition to a border wall – while the government is (partially) shut down. This gives Trump’s allies something to work with. Steny Hoyer, second-ranking House Democrat, already has conceded that a physical barrier is part of the solution – just not while the government is shut down.  The Democrats now own the House majority because new members have been elected from historically GOP-leaning districts, and many of those freshmen fear facing voters in November next year and being painted as Pelosi’s pawns who prevented a border barrier desired by their constituents.

The Senate members of the conference committee have been announced:

The Republicans are Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Hoeven of North Dakota, and the Democrats are Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Jon Tester of Montana.

Tester won re-election in Montana, but cannot afford to be too far left. Leahy is the biggest camera hog in the group, and Dick Durbin is a chronic schemer. None of the Republicans are among the highest profiles in the Senate..

I have not been able to locate a full list of the House members, but Rep. Chuck Fleishmann, the Republican ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee is on it.

It is possible that the conference committee will not be able to come up with anything that satisfies both parties, in which case the partial shutdown resumes, but this time with the Democrats shown to be willing to shut down the government in order to prevent a border barrier. Trump will have met their demand to resume government funding, and they will have refused to meet him halfway. And President Trump will be delivering the State of the Union address at a date to be determined, but before the shutdown might resume. This will allow the highest possible platform for President Trump to comment on the negotiations, with Nancy Pelosi sitting behind him.

Will the Democrats refuse to give Trump funds for something his base would accept as a reasonable start on the wall he promised? They certainly might, in which case the government will partially shut down again, with federal workers having received their back pay, but facing another bout of financial stringency. Would Trump then pull the trigger on a national emergency declaration?  If he does, the Democrats will find a judge in the Ninth Circuit who believes that a district court judge has the power to overrule the statutory authority clearly granted to the president to declare a national emergency. What happens then? I think it is quite possible that the Trump administration will appeal directly to the SCOTUS, bypassing the Ninth in the name of a national emergency. He might even decide to take a stand aginst the new concept of district court jurisdiction over the entire United States.

I have a guess, based on the fact that Trump has not deployed insulting nicknames for either Schumer or Pelosi. I suspect that in the discussions that led to the agreement to set up a conference committee both sides agreed that another shutdown was in nobody’s interest, and that a compromise would benefit both parties. If I am wrong, the Democrats will be going to the mattresses over a barrier free border, a position that may please Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but would not help the Dems win in 2020.

President Trump’s Rose Garden declaration of an end to the partial shutdown was a tactical retreat, a rejection of a Little Big Horn strategy. He found himself in a no-win situation, and rather than bear unacceptable costs, has redefined the contest on better terms: sending the issue to a House and Senate conference committee charged with coming up with a deal that prevents a resumption of the shutdown, and provides border security, something that Democrats say they believe is important.

Making the best of a bad situation. Rose Garden speech January 25, 2019

Cropped from Fox News, via YouTube

It is important that Nancy Pelosi declined to rule out funding for a physical barrier. We do not know what was said in the process of reaching an agreement to re-start the normal operations of the federal givenrment for the next 21 days.

Democrats naturally are gloating, calling it a surrender and admonishing Trump to “learn his lesson” and acknowledge his defeat by the wise and all-knowing Nancy Pelosi.  This certainly gives them a sugar high while providing evidence for future use that their priority is humiliating Trump rather than attending to the needs of border security.

Nonetheless, as President Trump correctly noted in the Rose Garden address, it was an “agreement.” The Dems agreed to procedural rules that can be used to make the case for border barrier construction. The deal will be hashed out in the conference committee, which will then submit the same legislation to both Houses of Congress, with the 21-day clock ticking. Either chamber can modify the legislation, but that happens under the gun of the ticking clock.

Trump’s stonewall on the shutdown had to end because a choke point had been discovered by the opposition (a group that includes Congressional Democrats and government employee unions along with the media): commercial aviation. It was obvious when the Air Traffic Controllers demonstrated their ability to stymie air travel at the nation’s busiest airports that President Trump, having declared ownership of the shutdown, would be blamed for strangling the economy, and was on the hook for any air traffic control disaster that might, God forbid, happen. The Executive VP of the Air Traffic Controllers Association went on CNN to blame Trump for delays and safety issues. With the Super Bowl next weekend in the city with the world’s busiest airport, not only would business and family travel be impaired, the functioning of the nation’s premier sporting event was in peril.  

It may be coincidence, but this kill shot job action occurred in the wake of extraordinary signs that House Democrats were wavering in their support for Pelosi’s “not one dollar” opposition to a border wall – while the government is (partially) shut down. This gives Trump’s allies something to work with. Steny Hoyer, second-ranking House Democrat, already has conceded that a physical barrier is part of the solution – just not while the government is shut down.  The Democrats now own the House majority because new members have been elected from historically GOP-leaning districts, and many of those freshmen fear facing voters in November next year and being painted as Pelosi’s pawns who prevented a border barrier desired by their constituents.

The Senate members of the conference committee have been announced:

The Republicans are Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Hoeven of North Dakota, and the Democrats are Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Jon Tester of Montana.

Tester won re-election in Montana, but cannot afford to be too far left. Leahy is the biggest camera hog in the group, and Dick Durbin is a chronic schemer. None of the Republicans are among the highest profiles in the Senate..

I have not been able to locate a full list of the House members, but Rep. Chuck Fleishmann, the Republican ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee is on it.

It is possible that the conference committee will not be able to come up with anything that satisfies both parties, in which case the partial shutdown resumes, but this time with the Democrats shown to be willing to shut down the government in order to prevent a border barrier. Trump will have met their demand to resume government funding, and they will have refused to meet him halfway. And President Trump will be delivering the State of the Union address at a date to be determined, but before the shutdown might resume. This will allow the highest possible platform for President Trump to comment on the negotiations, with Nancy Pelosi sitting behind him.

Will the Democrats refuse to give Trump funds for something his base would accept as a reasonable start on the wall he promised? They certainly might, in which case the government will partially shut down again, with federal workers having received their back pay, but facing another bout of financial stringency. Would Trump then pull the trigger on a national emergency declaration?  If he does, the Democrats will find a judge in the Ninth Circuit who believes that a district court judge has the power to overrule the statutory authority clearly granted to the president to declare a national emergency. What happens then? I think it is quite possible that the Trump administration will appeal directly to the SCOTUS, bypassing the Ninth in the name of a national emergency. He might even decide to take a stand aginst the new concept of district court jurisdiction over the entire United States.

I have a guess, based on the fact that Trump has not deployed insulting nicknames for either Schumer or Pelosi. I suspect that in the discussions that led to the agreement to set up a conference committee both sides agreed that another shutdown was in nobody’s interest, and that a compromise would benefit both parties. If I am wrong, the Democrats will be going to the mattresses over a barrier free border, a position that may please Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but would not help the Dems win in 2020.

This might just work…

President Trump seems to have allowed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to bring in Elliott Abrams as his special point man for Venezuelans affairs. Here’s Politico’s hostile report:

Elliott Abrams, a controversial neoconservative figure who was entangled in the Iran-Contra affair, has been named as a Trump administration special envoy overseeing policy toward Venezuela, which has been rocked by a leadership crisis.

Abrams’ appointment, announced Friday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is something of a surprise — President Donald Trump nixed his 2017 bid to be deputy secretary of State after learning that Abrams had criticized him.

Regardless of what you think of Abrams, a neocon who has vociferously opposed Trump in the past, and who was turned down for a State department job on just those grounds in the past, his appointment should keep Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s brutal dictator, up at night.

The Associated Press’s Josh Goodman pointed out the obvious in this tweet:

 

Abrams was one of the architects of the U.S. invasion of Panama to remove Manuel Noriega in 1989. Maduro frequently cites “Operation Just Cause” as the mold the US is following to oust him. US denies it is coup-mongering. https://t.co/NEnOPuJm0l

— Joshua Goodman (@APjoshgoodman) January 25, 2019

 

He’s also been a dogged defender of the Nicaraguan people’s efforts to get rid of communists from their midst, something that the left calls the Iran-Contra scandal, but which in reality was about keeping Castro and his colonizations at bay in the face of a KGB-coopted Congress that denied funds to oppose it. He was a hero on that one, not a ‘convicted’ person as the left yells. (He got a pardon for a politically motivated prosecution, while his KGB-coopted congressional opponents got away with actual treason.) There’s no reason to criticize him on that.

The response from prominent freedom-fighting Venezuelans has been quite positive:

 

Maravilloso el nombramiento de Elliott Abrams como Coordinador Especial para la Crisis de VENEZUELA 🇻🇪 en el gobierno de 🇺🇸. Abrams fue mencionado en un momento como posible #2 del Departamento de Estado. Trae experiencia en cantidad a un tema que promete ser importante por años. https://t.co/l3LaDEslzp

— Pedro Mario Burelli (@pburelli) January 25, 2019

 

Abrams has his good and bad points, so it’s not useful to just join the rabid left and sound the alarm, as Breitbart, unfortunately, is doing. Yes, he was an architect of the Iraq war, famous for its free-spending ways on American lives, its amazing naivete with crooked charlatans such as Ahmed Chalabi, spouting the right beltway cocktail-party democracy talk about Iraqis just being Jeffersonian democrats all along, and above all, its failure in nation-building, based on its failure to enact free market reforms and personal security measures. To my mind, Abrams was even worse on the matter of Pinochet’s Chile, blithely ignoring the late great Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s dictum on dictators and double standards to treat the free-market-transforming Chile the same as a typical communist regime. The Chicago Boys, in their memoirs, wrote a lot about how Abrams nearly derailed their transformation of Chile through his sanctions and vetos of development bank loans which came at a time when the country was doing the right things and needed U.S. support. Only someone with no understanding of free markets (and that was visible in Iraq, too) could do something that stupid, and given that Abrams comes from a typical leftist-origin neocon background, free markets are probably still a black box to him. If the Venezuela mission stays limited to getting rid of Maduro and his Russian masters and the U.S. doesn’t get into nationbuilding, so what? Another problem is that Abrams is also a true swamp thing who has loudly spoken out against Trump and hasn’t the slightest clue as to why Americans voted for him, which would suggest he is out of touch with popular sentiment despite his pretensions to being all in for democracy. He probably still hates Turmp on style grounds alone as most nevertrumps do, wanting all those cocktail party invitations in Georgetown, and might be capable of leaking to the press, deep state-style, to undermine President Trump. One has got to hope that Trump and Pompeo have made an understanding with him ahead of bringing him onboard so that isn’t an issue. 

But Abrams is not without his strengths. The Venezuela crisis is a multi-faceted one and experience here is important. We have something we have never seen before in foreign affairs – a legislative president declaring himself president on valid constitutional grounds, and the U.S. recognizing that over the objections of the sitting dictator. There’s the issue of the embassy kickout, which the U.S. is refusing to honor, something that puts our diplomats in considerable danger from Maduro’s thugs, which could be a showdown. There’s also the issue of finance. Acting President Juan Guaido can make all kinds of calls for sanctions and financial resources which will be denied to the Chavista usurpers who will believe they are entitled to them. Right now an amazing little battle is going on with ownership of Citgo, the Venezuelan government’s U.S.-based refiner and marketer of fuel, with Guaido expected to appoint a new board that shareholders and U.S. law will recognize. Imagine Maduro cut off from that money and Guaido in control of it.  There are plenty of other issues that will require very deft diplomatic handling. Abrams might just be the right guy for this.

He has experience in spades and he’s close to Marco Rubio, who’s made quite a few excellent calls in the run-up to the current crisis. Abrams is indeed famous for using force and intervention, and that has potential to be good stuff, too, starting with the coming to life of Maduro’s worst nightmare. Trump is against Iraq War-style force, so I can’t see an actual Marine invasion happening although I don’t want to say it won’t happen. But just the threat of force is sometimes all it takes, and Abrams embodies that. He will unnerve Maduro. Rest assured, as the left that Maduro listens to screeches, you can bet they will be expecting the very worst of Bush-style interventions. That works to Trump’s advantage.

If Abrams’ strengths are optimally employed, he should ensure that the U.S. and the Venezuelans see a good outcome to the current crisis. Maduro will dislodged, the Monroe Doctrine will be restored with Russians and other overseas players kicked out, and the Venezuelans will be empowered to restore their own democracy. Like some of that Noriega action, Nicolas? Heh. Let’s cross our fingers and be cautiously optimistic.

Image credit: Miller Center, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

 

 

 

 

This might just work…

President Trump seems to have allowed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to bring in Elliott Abrams as his special point man for Venezuelans affairs. Here’s Politico’s hostile report:

Elliott Abrams, a controversial neoconservative figure who was entangled in the Iran-Contra affair, has been named as a Trump administration special envoy overseeing policy toward Venezuela, which has been rocked by a leadership crisis.

Abrams’ appointment, announced Friday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is something of a surprise — President Donald Trump nixed his 2017 bid to be deputy secretary of State after learning that Abrams had criticized him.

Regardless of what you think of Abrams, a neocon who has vociferously opposed Trump in the past, and who was turned down for a State department job on just those grounds in the past, his appointment should keep Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s brutal dictator, up at night.

The Associated Press’s Josh Goodman pointed out the obvious in this tweet:

 

Abrams was one of the architects of the U.S. invasion of Panama to remove Manuel Noriega in 1989. Maduro frequently cites “Operation Just Cause” as the mold the US is following to oust him. US denies it is coup-mongering. https://t.co/NEnOPuJm0l

— Joshua Goodman (@APjoshgoodman) January 25, 2019

 

He’s also been a dogged defender of the Nicaraguan people’s efforts to get rid of communists from their midst, something that the left calls the Iran-Contra scandal, but which in reality was about keeping Castro and his colonizations at bay in the face of a KGB-coopted Congress that denied funds to oppose it. He was a hero on that one, not a ‘convicted’ person as the left yells. (He got a pardon for a politically motivated prosecution, while his KGB-coopted congressional opponents got away with actual treason.) There’s no reason to criticize him on that.

The response from prominent freedom-fighting Venezuelans has been quite positive:

 

Maravilloso el nombramiento de Elliott Abrams como Coordinador Especial para la Crisis de VENEZUELA 🇻🇪 en el gobierno de 🇺🇸. Abrams fue mencionado en un momento como posible #2 del Departamento de Estado. Trae experiencia en cantidad a un tema que promete ser importante por años. https://t.co/l3LaDEslzp

— Pedro Mario Burelli (@pburelli) January 25, 2019

 

Abrams has his good and bad points, so it’s not useful to just join the rabid left and sound the alarm, as Breitbart, unfortunately, is doing. Yes, he was an architect of the Iraq war, famous for its free-spending ways on American lives, its amazing naivete with crooked charlatans such as Ahmed Chalabi, spouting the right beltway cocktail-party democracy talk about Iraqis just being Jeffersonian democrats all along, and above all, its failure in nation-building, based on its failure to enact free market reforms and personal security measures. To my mind, Abrams was even worse on the matter of Pinochet’s Chile, blithely ignoring the late great Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s dictum on dictators and double standards to treat the free-market-transforming Chile the same as a typical communist regime. The Chicago Boys, in their memoirs, wrote a lot about how Abrams nearly derailed their transformation of Chile through his sanctions and vetos of development bank loans which came at a time when the country was doing the right things and needed U.S. support. Only someone with no understanding of free markets (and that was visible in Iraq, too) could do something that stupid, and given that Abrams comes from a typical leftist-origin neocon background, free markets are probably still a black box to him. If the Venezuela mission stays limited to getting rid of Maduro and his Russian masters and the U.S. doesn’t get into nationbuilding, so what? Another problem is that Abrams is also a true swamp thing who has loudly spoken out against Trump and hasn’t the slightest clue as to why Americans voted for him, which would suggest he is out of touch with popular sentiment despite his pretensions to being all in for democracy. He probably still hates Turmp on style grounds alone as most nevertrumps do, wanting all those cocktail party invitations in Georgetown, and might be capable of leaking to the press, deep state-style, to undermine President Trump. One has got to hope that Trump and Pompeo have made an understanding with him ahead of bringing him onboard so that isn’t an issue. 

But Abrams is not without his strengths. The Venezuela crisis is a multi-faceted one and experience here is important. We have something we have never seen before in foreign affairs – a legislative president declaring himself president on valid constitutional grounds, and the U.S. recognizing that over the objections of the sitting dictator. There’s the issue of the embassy kickout, which the U.S. is refusing to honor, something that puts our diplomats in considerable danger from Maduro’s thugs, which could be a showdown. There’s also the issue of finance. Acting President Juan Guaido can make all kinds of calls for sanctions and financial resources which will be denied to the Chavista usurpers who will believe they are entitled to them. Right now an amazing little battle is going on with ownership of Citgo, the Venezuelan government’s U.S.-based refiner and marketer of fuel, with Guaido expected to appoint a new board that shareholders and U.S. law will recognize. Imagine Maduro cut off from that money and Guaido in control of it.  There are plenty of other issues that will require very deft diplomatic handling. Abrams might just be the right guy for this.

He has experience in spades and he’s close to Marco Rubio, who’s made quite a few excellent calls in the run-up to the current crisis. Abrams is indeed famous for using force and intervention, and that has potential to be good stuff, too, starting with the coming to life of Maduro’s worst nightmare. Trump is against Iraq War-style force, so I can’t see an actual Marine invasion happening although I don’t want to say it won’t happen. But just the threat of force is sometimes all it takes, and Abrams embodies that. He will unnerve Maduro. Rest assured, as the left that Maduro listens to screeches, you can bet they will be expecting the very worst of Bush-style interventions. That works to Trump’s advantage.

If Abrams’ strengths are optimally employed, he should ensure that the U.S. and the Venezuelans see a good outcome to the current crisis. Maduro will dislodged, the Monroe Doctrine will be restored with Russians and other overseas players kicked out, and the Venezuelans will be empowered to restore their own democracy. Like some of that Noriega action, Nicolas? Heh. Let’s cross our fingers and be cautiously optimistic.

Image credit: Miller Center, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

 

 

 

 

President Donald Trump said Friday there was a “good chance” of declaring a State of Emergency on the Southern border, shortly after announcing his short-term surrender to Democrats on the partial government shutdown fight.

“I think we have a good chance,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We’ll work with the Democrats and negotiate and if we can’t do that, then obviously we’ll do the emergency because that’s what it is. It’s a national emergency.”

Declaring a national emergency would allow the president to shift funding to secure the border without Congress, although it would likely be challenged in court.

The president made his remarks during a White House event with Hispanic pastors on Friday to discuss the importance of security on the Southern border.

Earlier Friday, Trump specified that he would reopen the government for three weeks to give negotiators more time to work out a border security compromise. A bipartisan committee will work together with the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a border security package for the president to sign.

The president was still adamant about funding more physical barriers on the border.

“If we don’t have that wall and we don’t have a very powerful barrier, it’s all just a waste of time,” he wrote. “It can’t work. Can’t work. So we’ll get it.”

On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Daily Briefing,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that if Democrats won’t make a deal on immigration, DACA and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients will lose “Because this president will secure our border through executive action.”

Graham said, “This is the first time in 12 years I’ve seen a deal where you secure your border and give a better life to the DACA/TPS population. If the Democrats do not work with us, the biggest losers, in my view, are going to be the TPS/DACA recipients. Because this president will secure our border through executive action.”

Graham added that if Democrats aren’t willing to make a deal, “I hope he will go the emergency route.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

In an appearance Friday on Huntsville’s WVNN, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) reacted to President Donald Trump’s announcement the federal government would be reopening at least through February 15.

Brooks praised the positives of the deal, mainly getting federal government employees paid, but also weighed in on the negative aspect of it, which was not addressing the border situation.

“There are a lot of pros and cons to it,” Brooks said to WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show.” “Some things I feel really good about. Some things I feel really bad about. I’m ecstatic the government is reopening.  This partial shutdown had an adverse effect on the economy of the Tennessee Valley, and I believe the federal employees, by way of example the TSA workers that were ordered to work, weren’t being paid for the work that they were ordered to do — that was morally wrong. And that is going to come to an end. So that part I’m happy about.”

“I’m very disappointed — even to the point of being angry that the minimum of 50 Americans who die each day at the hands of illegal aliens, homicides and/or drug overdoses from drugs that come through our porous southern border — that another 1,000-plus are going to die because the Democrats refuse to join us in appropriate border security measures,” Brooks continued. “That’s a minimum of 50 deaths per day because of our porous southern border, times about 20 days — that’s a little over 1,00 people when you add in the additional days. That part is really bad.”

The Alabama congressman maintained the border wall was a necessity in border security, a term many members of Congress are using as they consider what the next move should be as the February 15 deadline approaches.

“There is no border security if you do not have the border wall component,” Brooks said. “Now a border wall itself does not give you border security,” he said. “It helps tremendously, but there are other parts to the bigger picture in order to have border security. But let me be real clear about something — the phrase ‘border security’ means one thing to conservatives and patriots. It means another thing to socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. To them, border security means helping to secure the entrance and care of those people who illegally cross our border.”

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Tax payer relief.

Via WCPO:

A Cincinnati police captain said a would-be robber is dead because a 63-year-old convenience store owner protected herself.

“A 48-year-old individual comes inside, points a gun to her head, demands money,” said Capt. Paul Broxterman.

Police responded to the Glenway Pony Keg on Glenway Avenue at about 4:30 p.m. Wednesday. Officers found James Douglas, 48, had been fatally shot. Broxterman said the man was trying to rob the West Price Hill store, but the owner put up a fight — shooting and killing Douglas.

“She’s nothing short of a hero,” Broxterman said.

That’s just one in a string of crimes that took place in about 12 hours.

Keep reading…

HT: TAH