Well, inasmuch as some leftists believe that "property is theft," I suppose one could argue that a squatter's rights are as valid as any other rights.  But on the whole, you are right: "left" means very different things in different areas and to different people.

I think that's true of any political term. One term can mean something very different in another culture than it does in America.

I don't think I know any lefties who speak well of Ahmedinajad.  Where are you getting your impression of this?

Jeff and Dark,
RPGPundit wasn't saying leftists go out of their way to support Ahmedinajad, he was saying that (certain) leftists support Chavez.  And that Chavez supports Ahmedinajad, and that therefore there's a contradiction about that.

Also, did this post end up linked somewhere unusual? I notice a lot of new people commenting.

Which brings up an interesting question going forward Jaeger,

People seem to trust Obama with the increased government control over the financial industry...  but how about the next person who gets what the Onion called "the least-desirable job in the entire country."

Um, they're all bad guys.  Per Marcuse, they have to stick together so they can screw over the rest of us.

These constitutions that have rules on re-election of public officials (Uruguay has it too, though not as strict as Honduras'; here a president can run again but not CONSECUTIVELY) are set up due to a long history of corruption and democracies having slid into autocracies; they are a hard-won safeguard against the syndrome that has come up all too often in latinamerica of "Presidents for life" manipulating the system to stay in power.

In latinamerican countries, term limits for presidents are a very important safeguard to democracy.
I don't really think that a coup d'etat was a good thing for Honduras, because that ALSO destabilizes democracy in a horrible way, but the real problem was that this guy had already demonstrated that he was going to patently ignore the decisions of both congress and the supreme court, meaning that what he was doing was already effectively a coup.
So they both suck, but its probably for the best that the Army got rid of this asshole, so long as they don't now decide to go whole-hog and take power for themselves or suspend the democratic process.

The problem was that the Honduran constitution contained absolutely no means by which to legally remove a president.  The president could be stark raving looney and want to command his people to burn the cities and dive into the ocean because they would then magically transform into dolphins, and there'd be no "legal" way of removing him.
And that was what, in essence, this president was doing; he had decided to blatantly ignore the ruling of Congress and the supreme court, and order the army to set up a referendum that had been expressly forbidden by the constitution and congress.
The equivalent would be something like if George W. Bush had said "You know what? Screw this term limits business, I want a referendum on running a third term". Congress tells him "no way". He does it anyways. The supreme court rules it illegal. He does it anyways, and orders the military to go set up the election booths throughout the country.
The difference is that in the U.S. by that point congress would impeach the bastard, and drag him kicking and screaming out of the white house, legally, because he's no longer president.
But in Honduras, the president can't be impeached. I agree that should be changed; but are you saying that otherwise they should put up with a President that was criminal, or insane, or who wants to set fire to the entire country, or sell Honduras to the Dutch, or who's having sex with farm animals on the presidential desk on live TV, or who wants to destroy honduran democracy by removing any semblance of balance of powers by blatantly ignoring both the legislative and judicial branches and doing whatever the fuck he wants (this last case being exactly what happened this time)?
I mean, how would YOU deal with this? Just ignore him? Isn't that just as unconstitutional?
The only real alternative would have been total legislative, judicial, and social anarchy until the end of Zelaya's term, as congress would have basically had to refuse to acknowledge any mandate he had, while groups like the military, the social bureaucracy, police, etc. were caught in the middle trying to decide whether they should obey utterly contradictory orders from the president (ordered without legislative approval) or the congress (ordered without presidential authority). No doubt riots would end up breaking out in a situation like this, as basic services began to be compromised; and possibly worse would happen.
So really, would that ultimately have been a BETTER situation for Honduran stability, than a coup that lasted about 10 hours before full authority was restored to a new civilian president?

Yup. I can imagine how such a thing came to be historically, someone probably figured it was too risky to allow impeachment; it was an attempted safeguard just like absolute one-term limits were a safeguard. 
One thing is clear: the Honduran constitution is set up based on the assumption that Honduran Politicians are a gang of power-mad assholes who will try to destroy democracy first chance they get.
And judging from all sides of this debauchle, I'd say that was spot on.