The title of a recently released CNN article is "Police Clash With Protesters in Honduran Capital". As if government aggression/uncertainty in Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Gaza and China (with the arbitrary arrest of prominent dissident Liu Xiaobo) isn't enough, there is now uncertainty in Honduras.

The first sentence of this article is "Police clashed with supporters of deposed President Jose Manuel Zelaya, but the extent of the damage was uncertain". The key word in this statement is "clashed" meaning that "the extent of the damage was uncertain" is debatable BECAUSE IN A "CLASH" IN A SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST COUNTRY THERE ARE BOUND TO BE ARRESTS AND INJURIES, but perhaps, these have not yet been reported.

The second sentence is also significant: "The Telesur TV network showed some soldiers advancing on some streets of the capital Tagucigulpa and blue-helmeted police CLASHING with noisy demonstrators, one day after military troops arrested Zelaya and sent him into exile". The key words in this sentence are obviously "advancing on some streets" and "clashing". "advancing on some streets" may be peaceful, but "clashing" USUALLY (let's say about 95% of the time) involves violence, yet another examplen of human rights being violated.

"Adriana Savori, a reporter for Telesur, reported that she and other journalists were briefly detained and mistreated by Honduran authorities. She was live on television as she described THE TROOPS.TRANSPORTING THEM AT GUNPOINT". Savori is a journalist carrying out her professional responsibilities/duties. SHE DID NOTHING WRONG.

In addition, "Two national television stations were taken off the air following Sunday's military-led coup and a third station told CNN En Espanol that ITS CONTENT WAS BEING LIMITED BY AUTHORITIES". This is yet another example of the media's work being interfered with. Regardless of whether this is in Honduras, Iran, North Korea or China PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THEM AND JOURNALISTS MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR WORK WITHOUT BEING HARASSED.

So what exactly happened to cause all this commotion? "The military deposed Zelaya early Sunday and flew him to Costa Rica. Roberto Micheletti, president of the Congress, was then sworn in as provisional president". This is a typical occurrence in socialist/Communist countries.

The next question is: why did the military overthrow Zelaya? "Zelaya HAD BEEN AT ODDS WITH THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT over a referendum he wanted to hold Sunday. The nation's Supreme Court ruled (that) the referendum was illegal and Congress voted not to hold it". So Zelaya wants to become a dictator. The "referendum" was on his power and dissidents were brutally dealt with. "At least 15 were injured Monday, the newspaper La Prenza reported". So it seems like a bad system has been replaced by something which is even worse.

On top of all this, "The Supreme Court also overturned Zelaya's dismissal of the country's top general WHO SAID (that) THE MILITARY WOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN SUCH A REFERENDUM". A dicey situation just got a whole lot more complicated.

"ZELAYA DISREGARDED THOSE ACTIONS and vowed to hold the vote Sunday anyway". He is clearly trying to become a dictator.

According to Arturo Reina, the Honduran ambassador to the UN, "That history is a thing of the past and it should be buried so that it never happens again". The key phrase is "That history is a thing of the past". So, it appears as if Reina supports Micheletti

President Obama said that "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelayah remains the President of Honduras". Regardless of whether the Honduran president is Zellayah or Micheletti, the situation is extremely volatile and unstable. The president also urged Honduras to not fall back from the "enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in South America". All we have to do is think about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to question the phrases "enormous progress" and "democratic traditions".

According to Larry Birns, director of the National Council of Hemispheric Affairs based in Washington DC, "THERE ARE NO HEROES IN THIS STORY. These people are caricatures of rectitude (righteousness/virtue) rather than examples of it". Regardless of whether the Honduran president is Zelaya or Micheletti, Honduras is essentially in a political stalemate. In addition, Birns argues that the Honduran Supreme Court "is one of the most corrupt institutions in Latin America" and this is yet another argument against "enormous progress" and "democratic traditions".

According to Peter Hakim, director of the Inter-American dialogue policy institute, "ZELAYA WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM. He's partly responsible for what happened. HE WAS PUSHING TOO HARD on a very fragile political institution. He was just PLOWING AHEAD against the wishes of every single political institution, INCLUDING HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY". There is a saying that politicians should put country before party and party before self. ZELAYA HAS JUST PUT HIMSELF ABOVE HIS COUNTRY AND HIS PARTY. Also, notice the sentence "Zelaya was part of the problem". We don't normally use the problem to find a solution to that problem.

According to Robert {Pastor, a Latin America security adviser to former president Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, "What happens when the Supreme Court decides against the president and the president ignores it? Who enforces it?" No one will enforce these laws. So what we are seeing is a complete breakdown in the legal system that clearly has no legitimacy/impact.

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that an OAS delegation would travel to Honduras as early as Tuesday to begin working on restoring a constitutional government", but, in an undemocratic country, this is unlikely to be fruitful.

According to Heather Berkman, a Eurasia Group analyst, "According to HONDURAN MEDIA SOURCES, Zelaya's removal has the widespread support of THE POLITICAL AND BUSINESS ELITE AND THE MILITARY AND IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT HE WILL EVER RETURN TO POWER". This is yet another indicator that the common Honduran has no say in the way that their country is being run.

Birns chimed back in: "AN EXIT STRATEGY IS NEEDED". A country in a prolonged political deadlock/stalemate is very likely to spin out of control. "But it's going to be extremely difficult to come out with an exit strategy UNLESS they get consent of key players LIKE THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE", but, in an undemocratic society, the chances of this are slim to none.

Pastor is still hopeful: "I don't think it's impossible".

Hakim summed up: "You can never put the toothpaste back in the tube. BUT YOU CAN PROVIDE A PEACEFUL TRANSITION PROCESS". The transition process has been anything but peaceful.