Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Yoko Ono supports Amnesty international

Yoko Ono is supporting Amnesty International. I just received this letter from her earlier this month:
-SJ Otto


I was just told that a group of donors has pledged $50,000 more as part of Amnesty’s Membership Drive. Don’t let this opportunity pass you by.
May you have peace,
Yoko Ono

MUSICIAN, ARTIST, ACTIVIST

Saturday, October 14, 2017

US is deeply divided —left vs. right—and conservatives wage a war of total misunderstanding

Portland Topless ANTIFA SJW FAIL with bonus Snorlax footage


By SJ Otto
While trolling around various web sites I'm more and more aware of the deep divide in this country between the conservative right (Mostly in the Republican Party) and the moderate left. And by moderate left I'm including such groups as the Antifa. Antifa does include some revolutionary anarchists. So it is farther to the left than most Democrats, liberals or both. But the left in this country, such as the people in the above YouTube video, are reacting to the policies of this country's present day leaders and that includes President Donald Trump.
When I look at how unqualified Trump is for the job, it raises a simple question: "how did this guy ever get elected?"
I'm not alone in this thinking and even Trump's Republican allies are scratching their heads. According to CNN:

"Sen. Bob Corker, who engaged in a public feud with President Donald Trump over the weekend, said Trump is setting the country "on the path to World War III."
Trump is a President who is acting "like he's doing 'The Apprentice' or something," the Tennessee Republican said in an interview with The New York Times that was published Sunday night.
"He concerns me," Corker added. "He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation."

So even members of his own party realize that Trump is "a few bricks shy of a load."[1] And yet we have trolls all over the internet defending Trump and tearing down those who want to change this country. And to show just how far removed from reality these conservatives are, look at this comment from a YouTube site:

“Johnny Blaze
3 weeks ago
We are outnumbered because we have jobs to go to and family to raise. We have better things to do than this.”

They seem to really believe that they are the only people in this country who work for a living. Where do they think such people get their money? Do they really believe that many people are on welfare. And:

“Charles Jazwinski
9 hours ago
Well we will only put up with this shit until it gets in the way of our jobs and families. Then it shall be open season because I'm already getting tired of these two foot pussies acting like they are contributing to society.”

They don’t want anyone messing with their jobs or families but they don’t mind taking away health care from the working poor. That would cause working people to die early from disease and these conservatives don’t care. That is one reason why so many people are protesting. They do have jobs. Many have families. These people are trying to survive in a conservative environment that makes that almost impossible to do.
These foolish notions that conservatives have about the left and poor people in general fuel the big divide between the right and left. It is a lot about misunderstanding and a stubbornness to avoid believing in the reality many of us have in our lives.  
This big divide is not going to go away anytime soon. Many leaders on the right deliberately contribute to these misunderstandings in order to use a lot of duped working class conservatives into supporting policies that favor the wealthy and work against those very working class conservatives.
The people who go to these kinds of demonstrations are the foot soldiers in a war of ideas. The bottom line for many folks on the moderate left and right is to defend the status quo and keeping this nation from seeing any kind of serious change. And for many conservatives it is class war on the poorer classes. As seen by those two comments above and the idiot comment the man in that video make ("Thanks for shaving your armpits") show just how backward and ignorant some of these people are. AND THEY VOTE! And that says a lot about the state of our nation today.




[1] a few bricks shy of a load. A pejorative phrase meaning not very intelligent or of questionable mental capacity. It can appear in many different forms and variations (for example: a few sandwiches short of a picnic, a few cards shy of a full deck, etc.).

A few bricks shy of a load - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+few+bricks+shy+of+a+load

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

WSU- ‘Sooner or later, the truth catches up’ to President Bardo

 Last year the Wichita State University newspaper, The Sunflower, took on WSU President, John Bardo. Not only did The Sunflower do some in depth reporting on Bardo's dismal job, but the Student Government Association, the elected student body, delivered a vote of “no confidence” to Bardo. So maybe Bardo thought that a good summer long break would help the students to forget what a lousy job he did last spring. Maybe he thought he could just brush off the students and their concerns. After all, he runs the university and the students could not actually fire him.
No the students can't fire him. But they can report on his bad work, such as sacrificing student needs to buy off big time school investors and contributors, such as the Koch brothers. So far the following story shows that Bardo will not get a free ride from the students and they have not forgotten how badly he runs WSU. -SJ Otto



When the Kansas Board of Regents appointed John Bardo as university president in 2012, he offered the promise of increased enrollment.
At his former university, Western Carolina, where he served as chancellor for 16 years, Bardo almost doubled enrollment and the size of campus.
That was his selling point, and the state of Kansas bought it — hook, line, and sinker.
Bardo came in with big ambitions and things started to change, noticeably, from the previous president’s tenure at WSU.
With the forward-focused, innovation-driven goals of Bardo’s administration, come the implication that the way things have been done at WSU are outmoded, outdated, and backwards.
He has a vision for WSU, an imagined plan for the future of the entire region based on his years of scholarship on the New Economy, and it looks great on paper.
There’s no doubt Innovation Campus has increased the size of campus, and student “collisions” have definitely increased with the improved Rhatigan Student Center and additional, but unnecessary, student housing. But prospective students aren’t buying the shiny new buildings or increasingly expensive amenities thrust upon them, like a membership to the YMCA or a luxury dorm.

For the rest click here.


Saturday, October 07, 2017

New Black Lives Matter protests in St. Louis should be no surprise


By Chris Otto, from A Blue Collar View:
  I ​was speaking to a woman the other day, when she brought up the latest round of Black Lives Matter protests that are sweeping the St. Louis region.
     “Everything was quiet, and now this” she said, with an air of disdain in her voice. I was tempted to explain it to her, but in the context of the business I was trying to conduct, I let it go.

     You may not have heard, but St, Louis is again the focus of daily protests by BLM activists. This time, the catalysts was the not guilty verdict of a white (now former) St. Louis police officer, Jason Stockley, who had been accused of murdering Anthony Lamar Smith, a young black man, and then planting a gun on Smith to cover it up. Here’s the condensed version of the incident: Stockley and his partner pulled Smith over, there was a confrontation in which Smith fled the scene in his car. Stockley perused the car and was heard on camera saying, “Going to kill this motherfucker, don’t you know it.” Less than a minute later he killed Smith, claiming Smith had a gun. Somehow the gun contained no DNA from Smith, but did have DNA from Stockley. During the incident Stockley violated a dozen or so STL police procedures and rules, including brandishing a non-police issue AK-47, (which he had been warned not to carry when on duty), and mishandling evidence, (taking his gloves off to retrieve the gun, after retrieving something from the squad car). Oh, and his partner pleaded the fifth and refused to testify in his partners trial. The whole thing stunk of murder and cover up, but justice system being what it is, Stockley was acquitted. Thus, the new explosion of protests over the past three weeks. Although the first weekend of protests had a few instances of vandalism (broken windows), and some episodes of rocks and stones being thrown at police officers, the protests this time have been peaceful, causing none of the widespread destruction we saw three years ago. The protests have also been more disciplined and strategic, taking place in trendy upscale neighborhoods in the city, shopping malls in St. Louis County, and even white flight havens like St. Charles.

    
Picture
Black Lives Matter protesters on the trendy, upscale Central West End neighborhood.

 Meanwhile, regional political leaders, the local press, and many white people reacted with astonishment that our unresolved issues have once again resurfaced in the form of social unrest. “How could this happen again?’, and “this isn’t fair” they whine. Except, it is fair, because we failed, as a region, to deal with the issues raised by the Ferguson Uprising. Before the Michael Brown shooting in 2014, we could pretend we didn’t know how bad relations were between poor black communities and the various municipal police departments, but not any more.   
​     The Justice Department investigation laid out a clear and undeniable pattern of civil rights violations by police of black citizens, who’s findings we have largely ignored. Missouri’s Governor put together the obligatory “blue ribbon” panel to study racial disparity in the region, “the Ferguson Commission”. It’s findings and recommendations were also largely ignored, and are now gathering dust on the shelf of indifference. Other than making a few minor weeks to the predatory municipal court system in St. Louis County, nothing has been done to stop the abuse that our black friends and neighbors are subjected to by the police and our “justice’ system. We have all failed here in St. Louis, me included, to make fighting institutionalized racism a priority. Our state legislature was too busy loosening guns laws, and the city was preoccupied with begging the Rams to stay in town. St. Louis made the fatal mistake of thinking the unrest was “the problem”, not a symptom of our inability to come to grips with systemic racism.

     No one in this town would deny that there is a deep racial divide, but many are content to pretend, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that this divide does not infect law enforcement.  How deep is this racial divide? The members of the St. Louis Police Department have two representative bodies, the official police union (the SLPOA), and the Ethical Society of Police, an organization formed by black police who believe the official police union does not represent their interests. By the way, the Ethical Society of Police called for Jason Stockley to be convicted of murder.

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

There are few countries in the world that allow a man legally arm himself with dozens of machine guns in a hotel room

By SJ Otto
So a man goes into a high class hotel and takes to his room nearly two dozen guns, mostly what most people would call assault riffles and no one is suspicious that something bad might happen.
While it may be legal for hotel management to let someone stay in a room with that many guns, I am wondering what the average person would need or do with that many riffles? I can see taking a few for a nearby hunting trip, but over a dozen? What could you possibly need with that many guns?
And what kind of country allows people to buy bump-fire stocks. Stephen Paddock, from the 32 floor of the at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, who shot down on at the Los Vegas country music concert, with Jason Aldean onstage, had 12 of those in his hotel room. There was no reason for the hotel management to search Paddock for those. Who would expect him to have them?
These devices are perfectly legal. They are mounted on the back of the semi-automatic riffles, to make the gun fire bullet after bullet without having to pull the trigger. It sounds just like a machine gun or as the experts say, an automatic weapon. But it only simulates automatic fire. It isn't actually automatic fire. From the sounds of the guns they fired on TV the other night, the only difference is that a real automatic can fire bullets at a much faster pace. But both guns can fire bullet after bullet without needing to pull the trigger more than once. If there is a big difference here I am just not seeing it.
Paddock was able to fire each gun for as long as it took for the gun barrel to get so hot it would jam. Then Paddock just grabbed a fresh one and was able to keep up his rapid fire assault. He kept the bullets firing for about nine minutes.
The amazing thing about all of this is that Paddock did not break a single gun law, or any other law, until he broke the hotel window with some kind of hammer. Chances are the hotel does not allow gests to vandalize their windows. And of course when the first bullet hit someone in the crowd, he was finally guilty of murder and attempted murder.
Most of the NRA's pro-gun argument are about hand guns. But all of this was done with assault riffles. These are guns that are close to a machine gun for all practical purposes. They are not good hunting weapons, they are mostly good for assaulting people and killing them. The NRA has gone a good job of making guns easy to get and use. And it was not enough for them to just fight for the rights of people to own guns. They pushed to let people carry them. Then when some people tried to keep people from carrying guns on their property, or public institutions, the NRA supporters and allies started passing all kinds of laws preventing people from keeping those who carry guns from keeping them on public property. The NRA has protected the rights of people with mental illness to own and carry guns. Conservatives have gotten laws past that allow those who carry guns to go to bars. The NRA and Republicans believes that alcohol and guns really do mix. Lately they are trying to get silencers legal. Everyone knows what a silencer is for—so that a person can shoot some one without making enough noise to draw attention to the act. It's an assassin's weapon. And the NRA and many Republicans wants to make them legal.
The only thing a bump-fire stock is useful for is to allow a person to fire a steady stream of bullets without having to pull the trigger—kind of like a machine gun. Such guns are good for assaulting and killing people—or for intimidating people, such as when Ammon Bundy and his followers took over a federal building in rural Oregon. That is the kind of thing conservatives think are good ideas. Some Conservatives and Republicans have admitted that owning guns is not about hunting. To some conservatives their guns are about the right to fight against their own government if they feel it to become too "totalitarian." From the Republican Views on Gun Control:


"Conservative philosophy is deeply rooted in individual rights and the retention of traditional social institutions.  Although there is no single set of tenets that can be universally viewed as conservative, American conservatism can be fairly characterized as a way of thinking that emphasizes stability and continuity, respect for republicanism, and support for tradition, “the rule of law,” and Christian values.  The Conservative philosophy honors the defense of Western civilization from the challenges imposed upon it by a modernist culture, and the encroachments of totalitarian governments and outside entities (the U.N.) headquartered abroad.  It should surprise no one who studies politics to discover that Republican ideology concurs with conservative values with respect to the broader justification of gun control.  Indeed, Republican views on gun control can accurately be characterized as mostly adverse to gun control legislation initiated at the Federal level.  This is so because most people who agree with Republican views on gun control consider government policy to be invasive if it interferes with the Constitutional rights of gun owners."

I have never been in favor of banning handguns. I believe that people on the left need to embrace guns way more than they do. It is too dangerous to just allow only the American right to arm itself to the teeth while Democrats, liberals, some democratic socialists and other leftists avoid guns altogether. Why should we allow ourselves to be defenseless against Republicans and other right-wingers.
And While I hate the NRA, I don't disagree with everything they say. We do need gun rights and many of us really should have arms. If there is ever a breakdown of the federal government we could easily be targets of right-wing bullies.
But the NRA and the Republican Party have gone to absurd lengths to protect the most ridiculous forms of weaponry. They are defending the weapons of assassins. How badly does the average person in America need a lot of machine guns or any gun that is rapid fire?
The idea that a man can bring a dozen automatic riffles into a hotel and no one questions him is insane. That all he does is legal is also insane. The NRA, the Republican Party and its allies won't even agree to the registration of assault riffles, even if they are to stay legal. Every type of weapon, no matter how dangerous, has the deep support of the NRA and its Republican Party allies. The NRA is one of the most successful lobbyist in the country. Their stances are just outright insane. And with the Republican Party virtually running this country the last 20 to 30 years, abortion has almost been wiped out do to Republican over-regulation. Recreational drug use has been heavily restricted, often to the point of being ridiculous and yet guns have virtually no regulations at all. Fully automatic weapons are outlawed and they are about the only guns a person can't legally own.
I'm not for banning guns, but a few regulations make common sense. It is time to stop the madness of the NRA and its Republican allies. And the NRA IS a Republican Party front group. It virtually never supports Democrats, even when the Democrats are pro-gun. At times the NRA will lie about a Democrat's stance on guns. It is time to stand up to gun crazy leaders of the Republican Party and the NRA (which is almost the same thing). We need some common sense, which is sorely lacking on the Republican side.



Pix by Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas‎ Remembering Las Vegas.


Adding to this:

Tonight there was action at Warren Square. I wasn't there so I got this picture from Facebook. -SJ Otto



Moms Demand Action - KS
The NRA has bought some members of Congress, and now Americans are paying the price for their greed.
Tell Congress to #RejectTheNRA's radical "guns everywhere for anyone" agenda: Text REJECT to 64433 to be connected to your member of Congress.



Thank you to everyone who attended tonight's vigil. Together we will #KeepGoing to #DisarmTheNRA#VegasStrong

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Tom Petty- sometimes a progressive musician

It's a big los for me to see Tom Petty die. He was a great musician and he was sometimes progressive. Here is one of my favorites:  -SJ Otto

Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers- Something in the Air





Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers - I Won't Back Down



Saturday, September 30, 2017

Hugh Hefner did some good—but he was not a saint

By SJ Otto
Hugh Hefner was a revolutionary of sorts in his early days. He wasn't on par with such heroes as Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr. But he did bring down some of the more repressive rules controlling the US press. His magazine, Playboy, was the first major publication with nude pictures and articles about sex. Hefner ran his own recipes for his version of the sexual revolution. He also gave controversial public figures a voice.
He challenged US puritan laws and attitudes. That needed to be done and Hefner did it. There have been plenty of efforts over the years to ban Playboy, but no court ever deemed it pornographic. Vigilante groups tried using boycotts to stop the magazine. But it prints even today, even if they took out the centerfold. Groups such as the National Federation of Decency and Jerry Falwell's Liberty Foundation campaigned to persuade the 7-Eleven chains to stop carrying Playboy and other similar magazines.[1] But Playboy was always available somewhere.
Hefner built up his own philosophy on sexuality:

"Aiming to target the more cosmopolitan and intellectual male demographic, Hefner spent the several years developing and promoting the Playboy Philosophy, a manifesto on his ideas on politics, and governance as well as free enterprise and the nature of man and woman." -Yourstory.

Along with ideas on sexual liberation Hefner's publication gave interviews on controversial public figures who rarely got treated fairly in the US mainstream media.[2] People such as Timothy Leary, Malcolm X, Fidel Castro, Madalyn Murray and the Sandinista leadership of the 1980s, were all given lengthy interviews. 
Gloria Steinem and other feminists attacked Playboy for being sexist—and the magazine was guilty of that.
Hefner made millions on his magazine and one time he had Playboy Clubs all across the country. He built an empire. He was a bourgeois liberal and liberal on many issues. But he was not a radical, nor was he a selfless hero who lived for any real cause. He lived the life of a $ multi-millionaire. He lived the good life and he lived it up.
He was not a great hero like Malcolm X. He was not really all the far to the left. But he did contribute to press freedom on several levels. He was a sexist pig. His magazine did not treat women and men fairly. He treated women as sex objects.
Like many public figures Hefner was a mixed bag. He was right about some things and wrong about others. I don't agree with those who have condemned him solely on his treatment of women. He did some good for the country and he deserves to be remembered for those things that he did right.
He is gone now. Today his magazine would almost seem timid compared to others that have sprung up since Playboy began, such as Hustler magazine. Today there is nothing really that controversial in Playboy, with or without the pictures. In the 1950s when Playboy began, the US was way more conservative. Change was needed and today we have more choices, culturally, politically and visually. For some of this we can thank Hugh Hefner.





[1] Steve Otto, Can You Pass the Acid Test? (Publish America, Baltimore) 2007,  p. 101.
[2] Steve Otto, Can You Pass the Acid Test? (Publish America, Baltimore) 2007, p. 100.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Civil rights group targets Kid Rock over comments about Colin Kaepernick

This is from a month ago. But it is important for people to know we don't need a guy like this holding office in Congress. If you live in his state—help him lose. - SJ Otto 
From The Hill:
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN 
A civil rights group is protesting the choice of potential Senate candidate Kid Rock as an opening act for a new stadium in predominantly black Detroit over the singer's support of the Confederate flag and criticism of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick.
The National Action Network’s Detroit chapter is calling for Kid Rock’s concerts at the new Little Caesars Arena to be canceled and is planning a protest against the musician next week, The Associated Press reportedWednesday.
Kid Rock, who is supposedly considering a run for Senate as a Republican in Michigan, has drawn criticism over his support of President Trump and his use of the Confederate flag, as well as his criticism of Kaepernick for his protest of the national anthem during the past NFL season.
“You know what? F--k Colin Kaepernick,” Kid Rock said during a concert in Iowa last month. The NFL player has earned criticism for refusing to stand during the national anthem at football games last season.
“These are moments where you have to act as a matter of character and state what your values are,” Peter Hammer, the director of the Damon J. Keith Center for Civil Rights, told the AP. “Everything now is becoming symbolic. That means we have to choose our symbols carefully.”
“Everything is different post-Charlottesville," he said of the white supremacist rally that turned violent in the Virginia town last month. 
Christopher Ilitch, the president and CEO of Ilitch Holdings, which owns the company managing the arena, told the AP he “can’t control what any artist does or says.”
“I will always demand that our companies strive to do right by Detroit, our community and its people,” Ilitch said.
The National Action Network was founded by Rev. Al Sharpton.


KID ROCK SUCKS!!

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Twitter Appalled Over Trump's Latest Gaffe, "This Thing Called The Atlantic"

 471
Donald Trump is having a very difficult time grasping the awe and wonder apparently posed by the Atlantic, because he’s been commenting about it all morning. "It's very tough because it's an island...an island sitting in the middle of an ocean — and it's a big ocean. It's a very big ocean." Then Trump, in his inimitable fashion of saying things twice, said, “This isn’t like Florida...This is a thing called the Atlantic Ocean. This is tough stuff.”
Trump on delivering Puerto Rico aid: "This isn't like Florida... This is a thing called the Atlantic Ocean. This is tough stuff." pic.twitter.com/tkWyUoPnwi
There's this thing we have called THE US NAVY @realDonaldTrump they handle that big blue wobbly thing called The Atlantic all the time.



The Atlantic Ocean, that's one tough hombre. North Korea, no problem. The Atlantic? It's not pacific, if you know what I mean. Tough, tough.

Trump: "This is a thing called the Atlantic Ocean. This is tough stuff."
Damn Obama left The Atlantic Ocean problem for Trump to deal with.

For the rest of this click here.


Sunday, September 24, 2017

Corbyn Rally Attracts Thousands in Brighton - But He Refuses to Speak at Labour Friends of Palestine Meeting

I find Jeremy Corbyn to be relevant because he is a democratic socialist much like Bernie Sanders. He has become a more affective politician just as Sanders has become, in the last year. He has a lot of faults, but is a breath of fresh air in a seas of really lousy politicians who don't have anything to offer the voters, just as in the case of Theresa May. May is a truly worthless politician. -SJ Otto


In Brighton this evening Jeremy Corbyn, supported by John McDonell, Jenny Formby, Martha Osamor and others, spoke to a monster rally, the largest rally I can ever remember on The Level, the traditional rallying place of the labour movement in Brighton.

After warm-up speeches by the above named, Jeremy Corbyn took the stage for a competent speech about placing people before profit.  Corbyn will never make a fine orator but the content was sound. What was disconcerting though was what he left out.

It's all very well to talk about abolishing tuition fees and nationalising the railways, but to do that you have to gain control of your party and there is precious little sign of that.  For all the talk about a kinder politics there comes a time when you have to take control of the Blairite civil services which is bending the rules blatantly in order to favour, wherever possible, the Right in the Party.

Tomorrow there is a demonstration outside the Conference against Iain McNicol, the plug ugly General Secretary who has engineered in conjunction with the Compliance Unit the suspension and expulsion of thousands of members.  It is about time that Corbyn had the bottle to call time on Crooked McNicol.

For the Rest click here.


Saturday, September 23, 2017

NFL Stars Erupt In Anger Over Donald Trump’s ‘Son Of A Bitch’ Speech

Once again, our idiot president makes a complete fool of both himself, the fools who actually voted for him, the evin more foolish people who still support him and the rest of us. -SJ Otto


“I can’t take anything our Celebrity in Chief says seriously. 

He’s a real life clown/troll.”



National Football League stars past and present are expressing outrage after President Donald Trump used an address in Huntsville, Alabama, on Friday to attack players who protest during the national anthem.

During what was supposed to be a stump speech for Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), Trump drifted away from campaigning to ask members of the crowd if they’d “love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, he’s fired’?”

He also encouraged fans to boycott the league over the protests.

For the rest click here.


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

No surprises from the dangerous rants of this brutish buffoon—Donald Trump—as he lays out his vision for the UN and his empire

By SJ Otto
President (and Emperor) Donald Trump laid out his world view in his latest speech to the United Nations and there was little in it that surprised me. Trump is a brutish buffoon who should have never been given the job of President of the United States. This country is seriously broken when an unprofessional amateur can manipulate the system, the electoral college, and win without the majority of his people's votes. His speech reflected his amateurish, uncouth, authoritarian views.
Yesterday a pundit on NPR read a few lines of a speech that former President Barack Obama gave the to UN when he was running things. There were surprisingly many similarities. So the speech was far less of a difference on policies and substance, but a difference of bad language and brutish and irresponsible threats.

That came to light over what he said about Democratic People's Republic (North) Korea's leader Kim Jong Un, calling him "Rocket Man." Trump said:

"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime."

Rocket Man is not really that strong of an insult. Most of those who were at the UN seemed to believe it was just unprofessional. Much worse was his threat to "totally destroy North Korea."  That is not because the country has a lot of supporters among leaders of the UN, in fact North Korea may not have any supporters at all. Supposedly China is their ally, but China has done little if anything to help out their supposed ally.
As stated above, Obama made anti-North Korean remarks somewhat similar to that of trump's when he was the president:

"North Korea tests a bomb that endangers all of us. And any country that breaks this basic bargain must face consequences.

So calling out North Korea is nothing new to US politics. What is different is the stark language—an outright threat to wipe North Korea off the map. And also, just as in the past, this US president did not say he would attack if North Korea does. He said that North Korea was being aggressive just by having nuclear missiles. It doesn't seem to matter if Kim uses the missiles, just having them is considered an "aggression."
We have to wonder if Trump is so unstable that he would actually start a war with North Korea. There is no doubt who would win. The US has way more weapons and people to destroy that country. That could be done without any help from any other UN ally or country. The problem is it could end up killing a lot of people, maybe even in the millions. Even a few nuclear weapons from the north could wipe out the city of Seoul, South Korea's capital, which is just about 35 miles south of the border. Cities in Japan, South Korea and cities in US controlled colonies, such as Guam, could be destroyed. Any use of a nuclear missile could leave an area poisoned and useless for years. The US has wanted to take over North Korea ever since the war ended in July 1953. That real estate is part of the US Empire's global desires. North Korea stands alone on a peninsula that is covered in US allies. North Korea is the one nation that stands in the US Empire's way.
Trump urged the UN to join together in order to curtail North Korea's nuclear efforts.
"We meet at a time of both immense promise and great peril," Trump said.
He also declared he would always put America first:
"As president of the United States, I will always put America first," he said.
But what did he mean? Did he mean the country, the government, the people? He couldn't mean the American people. Only a minority of people actually voted for him. And it is likely his support has actually gone down since the election. And he only represent wealthy Americans. His latest efforts to repeal Obama Care (Affordable Care Act or ACA) will leave many poor Americans to die from lack of health care. So Trump's "America" has no concern or respect for its less wealthy citizens.
Trump urged other leaders to do likewise and always "put your countries first."
"The potential of the U.N. is unlimited," he said.
Acknowledging that he's been a "critic" of the organization in the past, Trump praised its future, saying "there can be no better forum."
He may have praised the UN in his present day speech but he has been very critical of the UN in the past. In the past he called the UN anti-American. Trump left the Paris Climate Accord because he lamented it was unfair to U.S. workers. He's railed against multilateral trade deals, like NAFTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership, that he feels don't benefit the U.S.
Today we live in a Unipolar world. Since the fall of the USSR[1] there has been no other superpower to rival the US. Countries, such as North Korea, that oppose the US imperialist order can't put up any real military threat the way the USSR did. Russia today is imperialist, but they have the same ideology as the US. There are small imperialist countries, like Iran,[2] but they aren't able to put up any real challenge to the US militarily. Most of Europe's industrialized nations act as an ally to the US, taking their own share of the US Empire's spoils. Smaller weaker third world countries are completely under control of the US. Because of this, the entire UN body supports almost all of the US's actions and intentions. When Trump asked for sanctions against North Korea, no country got up and tried to oppose it.
The US has gotten complete support on the other rogue nations it has condemned, Iran and Venezuela. Except for Climate Change Trump has gotten everything he wants from the UN. With the exception of the nations of Europe, the US is full of yes-men and Imperialist lackeys. So Trump's accusations of UN anti-Americanism just doesn't make any sense.
The only country that opposed Trump's anti-Iran rant was Iran:

“Trump’s shameless and ignorant remarks, in which he ignored Iran’s fight against terrorism, display his lack of knowledge and unawareness,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, according to the official Fars news agency.
Trump called Iran a “depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos,” saying that it funds “terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors” and uses its oil wealth to “shore up Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship, fuel Yemen's civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East.”
In turn, Zarif accused Washington of supporting “tyrannical regimes” in the region, and “the criminal Zionist state.”

And while the other countries also oppose Iran, Trump's attacks on the agreement that Obama hammered out before he left office where not so welcome. Destroying that agreement comes across as reckless by the other countries. From Vox:

All of this raises a pair of questions: Is Trump making a valid argument when he says Iran is breaking the deal? And if not, what’s his actual problems with the agreement?
The answer to the first question is pretty clearly no. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is in charge of monitoring the deal, has repeatedly certified that Tehran is complying with the limits on its nuclear program. The Trump administration has yet to produce any evidence to the contrary.
It seems instead that Trump’s case against the deal is more political and strategic: His team believes that Iran is an enemy of the United States, one that frustrates US objectives in places like Iraq and Yemen, and that the nuclear deal hasn’t done much to solve the problem.
 
Over all we see the rumblings of an arrogant and ruthless-inexperienced politician who can make or break anyone else's country. He inflicts fear on a lot of leaders. He can carry out any of the threats he has made in his UN speech. There is nothing any of the UN leaders can do to stop him or even slow him down. He is a dangerous man. That the US is an empire and today's supreme source of military and political power in the world is obvious and just about any US president would fit in with that assessment. The real difference between Trump and his predecessors is that he is way more reckless and dangerous.
As long as Trump is the president there is little we can do about his foreign policies. We can try and pressure members of congress, but there are very few members willing to stand up against him. There are a few, such as Bernie Sanders, who oppose at least some of his policies. Let's do what we can.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif © Brendan McDermid / Reuters



[1] Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or CCCP.
[2] Iran has some proxy troops in the Middle East. It rivals such US allies as Saudi Arabia or Turkey.