So 400 liberal rabbis are calling for a boycott, or something, of Glenn Beck. Well, OK, it's a free country, even if The Cable Gamer suspects that George Soros, the left-wing billionaire who has been the target of Beck's attacks, has something to do with this well-funded boycott; after all, the rabbis have come up with $100,000 or so to buy a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal.
But here's a question: Is the truth a defense? That is, if Soros did collaborate with the Nazis, as he himself freely admitted back in 2006, shouldn't that count for more than what Beck said 66 years later? That is, aren't Soros' actions more significant than Beck's words? Why boycott Beck? Why not boycott, or at least protest, Soros?
Below is a screengrab from one of the many blogs that have covered this story closely:
Home » » Boycott of Glenn Beck: Is the truth a defense? If George Soros helped the Nazis in 1944, isn't that a lot more important than whatever Beck said in 2010? Especially if what Beck said was the truth?