Alexander Vershbow, the new US ambassador to South Korea, has concluded that North Korea is a “criminal regime.” The United States, in contrast, is not.

As evidence of North Korea’s criminality, Vershbrow listed several activities in which the U.S. also heavily participates: “the export of dangerous military technologies, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, … and many other illicit activities.”¹

The difference, U.S. State Department experts explained, is that North Korea is part of certain type of axis — specifically, an axis of evil. “When you are drenched in evilness, as North Korea is, criminality clings to you like a leech … an evil, criminal leech. But when you receive your agenda directly from The Lord Jesus Christ — as the U.S. does — exporting dangerous military technologies is like spreading little golden nuggets of peace throughout the globe.”

North Korea has repeatedly made global headlines for its evil nuclear weapons development program. In contrast, the U.S. continues to develop its nuclear weapons program for lawful and wholesome purposes, expanding upon the 12,070 such weapons in its current arsenal.²

The Bush Administration, along with a broad cross-section of Democrat and Republican congresspersons, is standing up in defense of Microsoft.

Microsoft Corporation, currently worth $295.2 billion,¹ has been fined by South Korea for violating its antitrust laws. According to experts, the $32 million fine — equal to 1/9218 of Microsoft’s value — is too much for the software giant to bear.

Microsoft has previously been deemed a monopoly by judicial bodies in the US and, more recently, the EU. According to ZDNet, “European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti ruled that Microsoft had failed to provide to rivals information that they needed to compete fairly in the market for server software and that the company has been offering Windows on the condition that it come bundled with Windows Media Player, stifling competition.”²

But Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. Bruce McDonald explained that “regulators should avoid substituting their judgment for the market’s.”³