First: Wonkette linked to a pretty astounding series of posts on a website named What's Wrong with the World. The posts are titled Disinviting Islam, and the second one, which puts forward a series of new public policies to remove Islam from America, is full of eye-opening recommendations:

4. Require all Islamic literature, books and websites originating in the United States to be communicated in English. The use of Arabic will not be forbidden, but requiring English translations will make public advocacy of jihad and sharia more difficult to hide.

5. Revoke the passes of Muslim prison chaplains and halt all religious accommodations for incarcerated Muslims.

6. Cease all religious accommodations, including the provision of military chaplains, for Muslims serving in the armed forces.

7. Remove all Muslim accommodations in government agencies, offices, and facilities (foot basins, prayer rugs, Ramadan observance, etc.).

8. Notify all businesses, private institutions, schools and local agencies that anti-discrimination laws do not require accommodating the religious practices of Muslim employees, customers, associates or volunteers.

Further, the post suggests action that you can take to drive out Islam on a personal level, including "Discriminate," "Censor," and "Organize." Reading the post will take the wind out of you; it's a blood-curdling case of wide-open bigotry. (When did institutionally banning an entire race, creed, or other group of people ever turn out well?)

Second: This post on conservative blog The Corner in reaction to a Bush op/ed in the Wall Street Journal, begins the way many posts on Huffington Post start, and then it takes a weird right turn: "I wish George W. Bush would shut up and go away. He keeps reminding me what a fool I was ever to think that the man has a conservative bone in his body." It goes on to rail against Bush's work for AIDS relief, saying his editorial is ""filled with the kind of emoting, gaseous, feelgood cant about “hope” and “progress” that, if you want it, is in all-too-plentiful supply over at the liberal booth." It goes on:

If George W. Bush, or any other wealthy American, is moved by the plight of AIDS sufferers in Africa, he is free to discharge his feelings by acts of charity. If he were to do so, no-one — no, not even I — would begrudge him the smug self-satisfaction he displays in this op-ed.

There is, however, no virtue in a government official spending your money and mine unless for some reason demonstrably connected to our national interest. AIDS relief in Africa is not so connected, not in any way visible to me.

It's been a day of unrepentantly monstrous behavior on the conservative blogs.