What sort of nonsense is this?  

The president of Honduras was overthrown by a military coup when he attempted a backdoor effort to gain a second term.  The Supreme Court of Honduras, rather than stand aside and allow the Congress to impeach President Zelaya (and then arrest and/or put him into exile, if he resisted), instead ordered the military to do the undemocratic work, instead.  It then appointed the President of the Congress (a man from the same party as Zelaya) to finish Zalaya's term.

President Zelaya is an ally of Hugo Chavez.  The ambassadors of both Cuba and Venezuela were roughed up by the military, and the Cuban ambassador jailed.  Chavez threatened to intervene if HIS ambassador was mistreated further.  I suspect that American politicians, of any stripe, would make similar threats (or warnings, as there are multiple ways to pass along a message of disagreement) if the American ambassador were arrested or held hostage.

President Obama has only stated that the coup is "illegal".  Most coups are illegal.  They certainly are a violation of constitutional provisions for presidential succession, wherever they may occur.  By contrast, in regards to Iran, the election ... at least from the perspective of an outsider ... appears to have been rigged, and the votes miscounted.  The man who perhaps won the popular vote was not declared the winner (parallel to the election of 2000, in this country).  Barack Obama did not say  that this election was rigged, or the results were "illegal" because ... unlike a coup, for which there is very little "legality" involved, an unsupervised election without third party verifiers is most difficult to "prove" as illegal.  Instead, he expressed America's support for an honest democratic process, hoped that the government would exercise restraint in how it addressed the protests, and encouraged calm.

What else is he to do?  For far too long American politicians have rushed to cast judgment and intrude American values into the internal electoral and political machinations of independent and sovereign states.  Much of the noise they make is for internal consumption within our own borders ... act tough, act diplomatic, act pragmatic, act act act (which it all is) to please whatever base of support is behind you ... but occasionally it results in action that often proves precipitous, unwarranted, and creates situations from which there is no easy means of withdrawl.

We can support democracy and democratic actions without taking action of our own.  By what right do we have the option of interfering within the political operations of a sovereign state.  We certainly don't like it when the leaders of other nations criticize how we do things ... let alone should they suggest stronger measures ... so why should we be able to do more than just make our feelings known?

The rest of the message conflates and mixes so much wild speculation on such a broad scale of concern as to be meaningless.