Sarah Jeong, a Korean American born in South Korea and earning $100K annually (25% more than average white Americans), was hired by The New York Times despite past tweets calling for canceling white people, mocking police, and attacking colleagues like Nick Christoph. Her family thrives in the freedoms secured by 37,000 U.S. soldiers who died in the Korean War—some remains repatriated after 60 years—yet she allegedly disdains their legacy. Meanwhile, The Times tolerates her while scrutinizing others, exposing a double standard that erodes its authority on bigotry and media accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, the New York Times hires a racist, but the right kind of racist, so she can stay.
It's August 6th, and you're watching The Ezra LeVant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government for why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
The New York Times just hired the most prolific racist imaginable.
I'm serious.
It's like they just hired the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
Dozens, probably hundreds of hateful, racist, sexist comments published.
Just amazing.
And they're standing by their decision.
I'll show you details in a moment.
But first, let me say something difficult.
I don't think it should be against the law to hire racist people or sexist people or to hire people with odious views, even those who say that police should be murdered.
I mean, obviously, there's a line if someone is literally uttering a real death threat.
That's a crime.
But we don't want to live in a country where you are not allowed to earn a living just because you're odious.
That's part of freedom.
And it also goes to the definition of what is odious.
It's a matter of political opinion.
Best let ordinary people decide in their own lives.
More than that, let people fly their real colors, not to hide who they really are.
Hopefully, the general standards of the community are healthy enough to marginalize a bad person.
No need to call in the law.
But look at this.
This woman's name is Sarah Jeong.
She is a young Korean American.
She actually was born in Korea and moved to America.
And she was just hired to join the New York Times Editorial Board.
That is the political cockpit flying the whole plane.
That sets the tone, sets the agenda for the newspaper.
What editorial direction the newspaper will be on any given issue.
It's a very influential newspaper, of course, the New York Times.
Many other junior journalists in the country and around the world pattern themselves out for the New York Times.
So this isn't just some cog in the machine.
This is a boss, editorially speaking.
So who is Sarah Jeong?
Well, like I say, she's Korean from South Korea.
Of course, North Korea is still a prison from which no one may escape.
Donald Trump is trying to fix that, but it's an ongoing process.
Now, Koreans are wonderful people.
The northern half of the peninsula is simply a giant prison.
The South kept free at the cost of tens of thousands of deaths and lives of American and Canadian soldiers and other allies too.
It's a miracle.
I mean, Seoul, Korea, it's an amazing city to behold out of the ashes, a spectacular economic and political and scientific success.
World-class company, Samsung, just name one.
You've heard of Samsung, Hyundai, LG, the TV maker, just to name a few.
But I say again, they are only free because the West, especially the United States, Canada too, Australia and New Zealand too, but mainly America, paid in blood and treasure to keep the South free.
37,000 Americans died in the Korean War.
And in fact, it was just in the last week or so that the remains of some fallen U.S. soldiers that had been kept by the dictatorship of the North for more than 60 years were finally coming home.
I'll come back to that sacrifice a bit later.
Koreans, industrious, smart, outstanding.
I love Koreans.
They're so successful in South Korea itself and in Canada and America, as most Asian immigrants are.
I mean, let's just speak candidly.
I know this is stereotyping, but it's positive stereotyping.
Asians are great.
Here's an official chart by the U.S. Census.
It's from the last census in the U.S. a couple years ago.
It shows income by race.
It's sort of politically incorrect to do this, but look at this.
See that line at the top there, that red line?
That's Asians.
This is a U.S. government chart.
Asians by far are the most successful, prosperous people in America.
Look at that average income there.
And remember, that's in U.S. dollars, so tack on 25% or whatever for the exchange rate.
The average Asian American makes $100,000 a year.
That is 25% more than the average white American.
The average Asian American, I'm just quoting from the chart here, folks, makes literally more than double what the average U.S. black makes.
Just quoting stats here, folks.
Now, for now, I'm not interested in exploring why these differences are by race.
Quoting Stats Here00:13:52
I'm just saying it just is.
And Sarah Jeong herself is living the dream.
She's free.
She's happy.
She's not under threat in North Korea.
She's not starving like North Koreans are.
She's welcome to reach any height in America.
If she's hired by the New York Times, that's really a 1%er job.
I have no idea how much she's being paid, but it's got to be industry-leading.
But wow, is she angry at America and Americans?
And to be more precise, at white people and at men and at white American men in uniform, the very kind of people who kept South Korea free by giving up their own lives.
Look at some of her comments she's made over the years, just vomiting up such deep hatred.
I think it's fair to call it diabolical.
Let's start with her hatred for police.
Here's one.
When homeless people can beat cops senseless and suffer narrative repercussion, let's then talk about accountability going both ways.
That's from August 2015.
Really?
That's a little weird.
How about this one?
The problem is not the complexity of the internet or computers.
The problem is that cops are assholes, November 2015.
Or this one.
Cops will get you for anything unless it's rape, August 2014.
Or this one here.
This is from August also 2014.
Cops were shit even before broken windows policing.
Sorry to swear.
Now, is that too nuanced here?
How about this one?
I'm sorry I'm going to swear.
Fuck the police.
That's what we blurred there.
I'm sorry I said the word.
That's the F word we blurred.
We don't need to blur it.
I'll just tell you the word.
It's F-U-C-K, the police.
Again and again, you notice it's a year later.
She's still giving her.
I could go on.
You get the picture here.
I don't need to swear more.
I'm just swearing because I want to show you what she says about the police again and again.
Not once, not once, but again and again.
But it's not just the police.
It's men in general.
Here's a weird one.
How can you kill all the men without a good vampi lipstick?
What?
Is that a joke?
Look at that, January 2014.
Let me read another one.
Kill more men.
That's from March 2014.
Okay, yeah, all right, there you go.
But let's get right to the racism, okay?
There's going to be more swears here, but hey, if it's good enough for the New York Times, it should be good enough for all of us, right?
Here, let me read the next one.
Sorry, I'm going to swear here.
Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.
Oh, okay.
Here's another one.
Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?
That's just weird.
That's just weird.
Here's one.
It's pretty simple.
Cancel white people.
Oh, okay.
Here's another one.
Oh, man.
It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.
You'll notice the dates here.
Like, this is over years.
Yeah, cruel to old white men, like the white man who died to keep Korea free.
Here's another one.
I dare you to get on Wikipedia and play things white people can definitely take credit for.
It's really weird.
Hmm.
Seriously, just swap in any other group, Koreans, blacks, gays, whatever, for that sentence.
Okay, one more.
There's 100 of these.
I don't want to gross you on.
I know I mean swearing a lot.
I'm just reading what she said.
Here's just one last one.
Number one, white men are bullshit.
Number two, no one cares about women.
Number three, you can threaten anyone on the internet except cops.
So there we get it right there.
We get the whites, we get the women, the cops.
What a weirdo.
What a weirdo.
What a freak.
And I read a lot of the dates so you saw this wasn't just like one bad night.
This was over the course of years.
What a fool.
What a bigot.
What a racist.
What a sexist.
What a cop hater.
What do you got against cops?
What an inarticulate hater, though.
I mean, it's bad enough to be this bigoted, but surely even a bigot has to be able to communicate effectively and persuasively and smartly to work for the New York Times.
Surely they vetted her just a bit, read her work just a bit before hiring her.
Again, not for some obscure position in the paper, but for their flagship, the editorial board, yeah, and they're fine with it.
You see, it was just rhetoric.
She was doing it ironically.
Seriously, here's the statement the New York Times put out when a few people, a few hundred people complained.
Take a look.
I'll skip to the best part in the middle there.
Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment.
For a period of time, she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.
She regrets it.
Sure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket there.
Guys, she didn't mean it.
She was just imitating that style because that's what you do.
You attack cops because someone was mean to you as a young Asian woman and you do that as an ironic joke for three years.
Hundreds of these over a vast period of time.
But hey guys, it was all just a joke.
Like, you know, people do impressions sometimes.
This wasn't the real her.
No, Earlier I mentioned the 37,000 Americans who died keeping South Korea free.
Without whom Korea would not be a country and Sarah Jeong would be in a prison camp not in America.
Try insulting the cops if you live in North Korea.
Now the U.S. government publishes the names of every single person who died in the Korean War.
They broke it down by state.
By name, you can see.
We're going through it here.
This is the list of soldiers just from New York State who died keeping Sarah Jeong's family free.
There are 2,373 names on the list.
Clyde Anderson, Milton Anderson, Richard Anderson, Charles Andrews, George Andrews, Robert Andrews, Victorio Angelini, George Engels, Vito Angana.
There's 2,373 of these New York families who lost a brother or a father or a son.
2,373 lives.
Family lines, in fact, that were snuffed out to let her family have a life.
The New York Times is a disgrace for hiring her and a bigger disgrace for keeping her.
I tell you this, and I ask you to remember this.
Whenever the New York Times or CNN or their Canadian wannabes lecture you about racism or sexism or mean tweets or anything else, when they scold you and name call you and tell you to shut up, when they call you angry, remember who they are.
Remember who they are.
Stay with us for more on this with Joel Pollack.
And joining us now to talk about Sarah Jung, what it means for the racism industry and the credibility of the media party itself is our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
Joel, great to see you again.
Good to be with you.
You know, Joel, there's some funny things about this.
I mean, Sarah Jeung, your colleague Alan Bokhari at Breitbart.com dug up a ton of funny tweets where Sarah Jung attacks by name so many of her New York Times colleagues.
I mean, Nick Christoph, David Brooks, Tom Friedman.
And she says, you know, I hate the New York Times.
I want to burn it down.
That's funny, but it's not serious.
What's serious is her off-the-hook anti-police extremism, anti-white racism, and anti-male just kookiness.
Why would the New York Times stand firm with her?
Why wouldn't they say, oh, we didn't know about this.
She's not just to our taste.
Well, I think there are two explanations.
To be charitable to her, she is a very good writer, as far as I know.
I'm not an expert on the tech world, but I did follow her before this.
I did not notice her offensive tweets mostly because I wasn't paying that close attention.
But when somebody says something interesting, you follow them.
And so I found some of what she was writing interesting and sometimes amusing.
She posted some funny videos.
So I was following her because I found her interesting and intelligent.
And that seems to be the consensus of most people who know her work outside of the context of Twitter.
So the New York Times may simply want someone with her knowledge on their editorial board.
That could be one explanation.
She's just that good.
However, they don't really extend the same courtesy to other people.
And I think what we're seeing is a pattern, not just at the New York Times, but at other media outlets like NBC.
If you are a racist or a homophobic person, you have a certain degree of immunity.
First of all, if you have the right politics, and Sarah Jong was certainly on the left, anti-Trump, anti-conservative, and all of that.
And you also enjoy immunity if you are part of a protected class yourself, particularly women and particularly women of color.
So she is less likely to be booted.
They do not want to see to be victimizing her for her views.
Never mind that she victimized other people for their race.
They're just not as prepared to punish people by the same standard.
That's why Jory Reed, for example, is still at NBC, even though people have unearthed her homophobic blogs and statements going back years and years and years.
Normally they would not tolerate that.
In fact, I think there have been major journalistic figures booted from major news networks.
I think CNN kicked out Howard Kurtz because of something he was perceived to have said that was homophobic, although I don't think it was in the end.
But, you know, this is not the kind of protection that other people enjoy.
So that's why she's at the Times.
And I have to say, I'm glad she's at the Times because I think she brings out into the open the kind of double standard that the Times would prefer to conceal.
And the next time you read a New York Times editorial, you now know that it was co-produced by a known racist, an open racist, whom the Times defended and whose racism the Times justified by saying she had been victimized on Twitter.
You know, boo-hoo, who has not been victimized on Twitter.
You know, so I think it actually helps those of us who would like the Times to be taken less seriously to have someone like that on the editorial board.
That's a good point.
But I put it to you that while this has been a spectacle for the insider political class, you and I, I would put in that category, people who follow the stories of media personalities, I put it to you that 95%, maybe 99% of people in Canada and the United States, when they read a news story, they don't look at the byline.
They don't know who wrote it.
They just read it.
And I think that knowing this once secret flaw of Sarah Jeong, people like you and me will say, aha, well, we know the New York Times doesn't mean it.
But I think most people, they will not be aware of this and they will just be, instead of her vomiting out these slurs, she will write this exquisitely well-written, publishable version of her slurs.
So she was anti-male, anti-white, anti-police.
She's not going to swear anymore.
She'll write beautiful, beautiful pieces attacking men and police and whites.
And the readers won't know this backstory that you and I and the insiders know.
Well, that's why we have alternative outlets like yours and mine to remind them.
And I should also say that there are some people who work in the editorial department of the New York Times, either on the editorial board or on the op-ed page, who have been absolutely disgraceful in their conduct towards those of us who support Donald Trump or who are at least willing to tolerate Donald Trump.
Let's just be more inclusive in our description of their targets.
I mean, they attacked me, some of them, for working with individuals whom they perceived to be bigoted in one way or another.
I mean, they came after me because Milo once worked for Breitbart.
They can never do that again because now that they have accepted Sarah Jung, whose explicit overt racism is not a matter of debate.
Sarah Jung's Overt Racism00:05:34
It's out there for everyone to see.
Now that they have done that and they haven't resigned these individuals, they can never do that again.
The New York Times can never launch that kind of offensive attack where they accuse others of racism or they accuse others of tolerating bigotry.
They can never do that again.
And if they try, they're going to get hit with this every single time.
It really blunts their offensive capability in the battle of ideas.
I think that they are going to have to get off their high horse.
And the people who are going to knock them off if they don't are you and me.
Well, you're right.
The alternative media will hold them to account.
But, you know, and Dreitbart especially, you guys are very big and strong.
And we're growing in our own way.
We're about to hit 1 million subscribers on YouTube probably in the next two weeks.
It's pretty exciting.
But that is a tiny sliver of a fraction of their reach.
I'm not being pessimistic or self-effacing.
I'm just saying they absolutely will continue to use identity politics smears in the future.
And they will just steam ahead and little toy boats like ours, they've got the mighty battleship.
I'm not being condescending to Dreitbart.
You guys are one of the mightiest, but it's still extremely frustrating, the hypocrisy.
What I say to people is, for yourself, know that you can never trust the mainstream media again.
Last point to you, Joel.
Is there something about, I mean, I just did my monologue a moment ago on this.
I said, of all the groups in America, you know, black Americans, at least their ancestors, lived through slavery.
That's a real thing.
Jim Crow laws, that was a real thing.
It is a real fact that African Americans, to this day, have an economic disadvantage in America for whatever reasons.
But Korean Americans are at the top echelons of success educationally, economically.
They are more successful than white Americans.
I know I'm just tacking on a little coda here, but to me, there's something especially gross about someone playing the race card who is from a privileged background, economically, demographically successful, a country saved with the blood of 37,000 Americans in the Korean War.
To me, that's the chutzpah here.
She's not hard done by.
If you have a hard-bitten black power activist who talks about, you know, what was Malcolm X's slogan?
X stands for ex-ex-smoker, ex-drinker, ex-Christian, ex-slave.
He's got a story to tell that can justify his grievance.
What the hell grievance does a 1% young Korean woman have in America?
I know I'm tacking this question on, but is there something about the fact that she is not a victim in any measure that makes this even grosser?
Well, not only is she not a victim, but she's a naturalized U.S. citizen.
And she seems to regard a large chunk of her countrymen with disrespect.
I mean, why would you want to join a country where the majority of the population were these horrible people?
She actually did tweet something about that, which I thought was not funny and just snarky and rude about the pros and cons of being in the United States, being a United States citizen.
On the con side, there was something bad about America.
On the pro side, there was it's not next to North Korea.
I mean, I think she is what Ruth Weiss called the inverse of a hypocrite.
She refuses to preach what she practices in the sense that she actually probably likes the United States.
She's probably in her personal relations with other people, tolerant and enlightened and engaging.
She certainly can come across that way in some of her writing.
But there's this mode of relating to the idea of America or the idea of white people, whatever that is, that is encouraged on our campuses, in our media, and in the liberal monoculture that is Silicon Valley.
And I think she's playing to that audience.
I think she's trying to show her peers how smart she is.
And this is the way they do it.
And I've heard other people do the same thing.
People who are otherwise tolerant and intelligent say absolutely racist, stereotyping things.
And I think that this is a wake-up call for her.
I'm not sure she deserved to get this appointment, especially after she trashed the New York Times.
I think that it seems unjust and unfair for her to have these kinds of opportunities where other people who don't slam their fellow Americans in the same way don't have these kinds of opportunities.
But again, it's the New York Times.
I think it helps conservative critics of the times.
And so I say good luck to her, good luck to the Times, and good luck to her color.
You know what?
I learned something from you every time, Joel.
She doesn't preach what she practices.
In her life, she clearly loves America, came to America, is benefiting from America, is a model citizen in many ways, I would imagine, in America.
But to be in with the cool kids, she's got to trash America and the very people who saved her country.
It's so perverse.
It's great to talk to you Joel.
Thanks for staying so much time and letting me throw a few extra questions at you today.
Hotels And Hidden Migrants00:10:29
Nice to see you.
Yeah.
All right.
There you have it.
Joel Pollack, one of the smartest guys around.
He's the senior editor at large at Breitbart.com.
Stay with us.
More ahead of The Rebel.
Welcome back.
Well, last week, my own attention was on the United Kingdom, where our little company, The Rebel, although it's based here in Canada, was taking a leadership role in helping to free Tommy Robinson, a political prisoner from the United Kingdom.
And I don't say political prisoner lightly.
The Court of Appeal of the United Kingdom itself threw out every single procedural flaw that sent Tommy Robinson to prison.
So that's where my attention was overseas.
But back here in Canada, the Rebel was doing incredibly important groundbreaking work on one of the top stories in this country that has been deliberately ignored or worse, spun by the state broadcaster.
I'm talking about our own handling of mass Muslim migration, especially Trudeau's Syrian refugees who came here in a flood in late 2015, 2016.
Sheila Gunreed has led the charge on, we've set up a special website for it called RefugeeInvestigation.com.
Sheila joins us now via Skype.
Sheila, great to see you again.
Hey, boss, thanks for having me.
Well, congratulations on your story.
I was rather distracted.
It was overseas, but you were just setting things on fire.
Hundreds of thousands of views amongst all your videos truly captured the attention of Canadians.
I think it's because you're the first journalist to report on this stuff.
Why don't you tell us some of the facts of what you found about the hotels in which Trudeau jammed these culturally misfit, linguistically misfit, hygienically misfit Syrian migrants of his.
Well, I tried to, because it was just so much information and there were so many themes that were revealing itself as I went through all those documents.
Initially, I started off just detailing the physical damage that these migrants were doing to these hotels.
And it wasn't accidental stuff.
It wasn't even stuff like holes in walls, although there was some of that.
It was stuff like starting fires in the rooms because they're drying their clothes.
It was stuff like kids riding the luggage racks around the hotel.
It was urinating in the lobby, taking naps in the lobby.
I mean, it was just so much information that I had to break it down into a series of investigative reports just so that I could communicate all of it to people.
And by documents, you're referring to confidential documents that we obtained from the government through access to information reports.
You know, some of the things like kids running around on a luggage rack, that's a haha, kids will be kids.
But when you have mayhem in a hotel for weeks and months, the place is destroyed.
I mean, a kid running around on a luggage rack, I mean, that would be irritating, but, you know, it's a little bit different when Bibles are destroyed.
Now, is that just vandalism or is that an ideological thing?
Let me read some excerpts from some of the documents you've been showing.
Sure.
Let me just start.
Here's an email from one hotel manager.
Good morning.
This is a challenging electronic message to write.
However, it is essential to inform you of the incidences that transpired here with this group.
And he goes on.
Refugees are urinating in the lobby area, said one manager, another manager.
You know, children are urinating.
I mean, lots of peeing, lots of hygiene.
Lots of peeing.
Lots of hygiene.
Or just women.
There's a lot of women who work in hotel housekeepers, front staff.
And you take in people from a misogynist rape culture, and that's not going to work.
I mean, here's just one line.
This is from an email on February 2016.
Parents are asked to stop smoking only to blow smoke directly at the employees in disrespect.
The men in particular do not like to be asked by staff to stop and get very upset.
And let me tell you one that was a little more ominous.
And I'm quoting here from one of your documents, and then I'd love for you to expand on this.
There was an issue with a housekeeper feeling intimidated by a male client.
That's what these Syrian migrants are called.
She was washing the bathroom on her hands and knees, and he was standing over her, staring at her.
The next day, a male housekeeper was sent to clean that room, but he was denied entry as the client's wife was in the room.
I don't know if there were any sexual assaults or rapes in these hotels.
It sounds like they weren't in your document.
But I can only imagine what it was like having uncovered Western-style women doing service work in these hotels and these misogynist Sharia extremist migrants either looking at them like a predator would look at a lamb or when a male was sent in, oh, you can't come in the room because my unveiled wife is in here.
It sounds really gross.
Well, and we would never really know about the things that go unreported with the migrants and the rest of the hotel guests, because you have to remember, these hotels were also open to regular paying customers who had no idea when they were walking in that they were walking into a filthy, sexually charged migrant camp, courtesy of the Canadian government.
Yeah, well, that's what this is.
This is a refugee camp, but they weren't real refugees.
These were people who had already been relocated to Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon.
So they were no longer refugees.
It's a lie to call them that.
And they weren't from Syria either.
They were originally from Syria, perhaps, but they had already been relocated.
So to call them Syrian refugees, both of those words are a lie.
But you're right.
This was some filthy refugee camp, but instead of being in the region, which it probably should have been, it was jammed into hotels in cities like Toronto.
Well, yeah, and there is behaviors happening in the hotel that I don't care where you're from.
I don't care if somebody wants to say that things are different amongst cultures.
I uncovered serious child neglect happening in those hotels, babies left in the rooms alone, children left in the rooms alone for hours.
The housekeeping staff were just coming across children being left in the rooms, kids out playing in traffic.
And the hotel managers were reporting this information to their contacts at the government, and nothing ever seemed to come of it.
And I was really struck with the double standard because if Canadians were neglecting their children that way, surely social services would become involved.
And it appears the federal government wasn't really doing anything about this.
And a lot of it seemed like the bigotry of low expectations.
Yeah.
You know, one hotel manager said the hotel is, quote, completely destroyed.
Here's another quote.
Children are running through the hotel causing damage to pools, and they've had to shut down the pool twice for repair or cleaning.
And that manager, this is a paraphrase, estimates the damage to the hotel is over $5,000 again and again, $250, $500.
And when they're told they have to pay for it, they said, oh, no, no, no, the government will take care of that.
They knew that their bad behavior would just be picked up by Justin Trudeau, aka Canadian taxpayers.
Right.
And in other documents that I found in that pile, you can really see how they appreciated or didn't appreciate at all Canadians' generosity.
They were at one point stuffing the donated clothes from Canadians who sort of rallied around these so-called Syrian migrants as they came into the country and donated clothes and toiletries and things that they needed.
And the hotels were finding these things discarded in the laundry room for the hotels to throw out.
It's unbelievable.
Part of me thinks if you take a family with children and just jam them in some urban hotel, that's dumb to begin with.
Kids need a yard to run around.
They need something to do.
They need school maybe, but how do you send them to school if they don't speak a word of English?
Men need to work or they get crazy, I suppose.
But how do you do that when they have no marketable skills, no language skills?
The idea that you scoop up migrants from the Middle East and put them in an urban hotel in Toronto to stew.
Now, that does not excuse the rape culture.
That does not excuse the vandalism, the ripping up of Bibles, the peeing on the walls.
That doesn't excuse any of it.
But by the same token, what the hell are you thinking when you take a hotel and you turn it into an urban refugee camp with no cultural or linguistic support?
It is awful.
And we're going to do it.
We're doing it again right now.
We're doing it again.
We're doing it, aren't we?
Trudeau's announced he's going to give free hotels to all these American migrants coming up.
Right.
We call them Americans.
They're foreigners in America who have been kicked out by Trump, and we're taking his rejects.
Yeah, they're self-deporting into Canada.
And the government, over the course of the last week or so, since Bill Blair became the minister of gangs and borders and whatever else that he does, they've sat down and they've decided that the solution to the migrant problem is to house them in hotels.
Even after seeing what happened in 2015 and 2016, this is now the permanent solution to the migrant problem as opposed to changing the law or fixing the loopholes.
This is what will be done going forward.
Unbelievable.
Leading the Charge00:02:43
Well, I was so glad.
I was overseas and I was paying a little bit of attention to back home.
I was so glad that you were leading the charge, as you so often do.
You've really done well with these access to information requests over the years.
I remember you're the one who broke the story that Rachel Notley canceled all the water bomber contracts just days before the Foreign McMurray fire.
Folks, if you want to see Sheila's reports, we've put them all together at refugeeinvestigation.com.
Do I have that address right, Sheila?
Yes, it's refugeeinvestigation.com, and you'll see the entire series of the investigations that I've done into this story.
Well, that is so important, and thank you for that work.
And folks, as you know, access to information requests cost money.
Filing fees, we have a staffer who does nothing but file those things, so there's the staff cost too.
Working in close contact with Sheila and our other reporters.
So if you want to help chip in for our independent journalism, I guarantee you that you will see nothing about this on the CBC.
Sheila, great to see you keep up the great work.
I will.
Thank you, Boston.
All right, there you have it.
Sheila Gunread telling the stories the other media refused to tell.
She was the only one who covered the mass sexual assault trial from the West Edmonton Mall swimming pool.
She covered it clearly and sympathetically towards the victims.
The rest of the media either ignored it or covered it sympathetically to the accused, who, by the way, in a shocking turn, was acquitted by the judge.
I won't get into that now.
Sheila, of course, doing yeoman's work here at refugeeinvestigation.com.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
That is our show on this holiday Monday, at least a holiday in some parts of the world where we are broadcast.
What do you think about that Sarah Jeong case?
I mean, Koreans are so industrious and so law-abiding.
And I know I'm stereotyping here and prejudice, but it's a positive prejudice, wouldn't you say?
I mean, I'm a bit of a sucker for Korean people, I guess.
I just, I worked with the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association for a year, maybe that's why.
I mean, hard work.
In Toronto here, especially, the hardest working people, corner store, there's a whole Korean corner store association, thousands of them, on their feet all day, law-abiding, tax-paying.
How can you not love Koreans?
Okay, I just showed you, I'm a fan.
But the gratitude also for our country and for the fact that, I mean, Canada was in the Korean War too, you know, wasn't just America.
Koreans: The Hardworking Stereotype00:00:44
And for this daughter of freedom, saved by 37,000 American lives, to come to America.
She was an immigrant here.
She wasn't even born here.
And then to despise it and disparage it like that.
What is going on?
But that's the cool kids.
I think Joel Pollack was spot on where he said she actually doesn't live that way.
She actually looks like she's living a great American life, but she feels the need, obviously, to badmouth the country that saved her family and adopted her just to be one of the cool kids of the New York Times.
In fact, I would say that the fact that she hates America so voluably, or at least white men in uniforms, probably helped her get the job of the New York Times, don't you think?