U.S. candidate loses race to lead U.N. migration agency

[demmiblue]

Source: Reuters

GENEVA (Reuters) - Ken Isaacs, the U.S. nominee to lead the U.N. migration agency, was knocked out of the race on Friday after coming third behind Portugal’s Antonio Vitorino and Costa Rica’s Laura Thompson in a secret ballot of member states in Geneva, delegates said.

Isaacs, vice president of U.S. evangelical charity Samaritan’s Purse, had caused controversy after being forced to apologize for tweets and social media posts in which he disparaged Muslims.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-un/u-s-candidate-loses-race-to-lead-u-n-migration-agency-idUSKBN1JP1KT?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

---

Link to tweet

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Hypocrite Isaacs: disparages Muslims and thinks apology makes it all ok. Plus Graham corruption:

When someone shows you their real face, believe them the first time.

Franklin Graham drew scrutiny in 2009 for drawing a full-time salary from Samaritan's Purse, while at the same time receiving a full-time salary from Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). This was called into question after his 2008 compensation from both organizations totaled $1.2 million. (Most of this was the result of a new IRS rule that required him to re-report deferred retirement contributions that had already been reported over the previous three years.[37]) Some experts on non-profits have questioned whether one person can perform two full-time jobs leading organizations that employ hundreds and spend hundreds of millions around the world.[38] In response to the questions about his compensation, Graham decided to give up his salary from BGEA, stating his calling to the ministry "was never based on compensation." He also had contributions to his retirement plans suspended until the economy bounced back.[39] However, Graham was again criticized in 2015 when it was revealed he had again taken up his salary from BGEA, and that his annual compensation was significantly higher than that of the CEO's of similar but much larger non-profit organisations [40]

[Iliyah]

2. Geez I wonder why.

[riversedge]

3. The White House had strongly backed Isaacs, despite U.S. withdrawal from other international bodies

ta ta!!


....The leadership race comes at a crucial time for global migration politics, as President Donald Trump attracts criticism for his “zero tolerance” policy on the Mexican border and the European Union struggles to find unity on how to deal with the influx of mainly African migrants across the Mediterranean.

Sponsored

The job has traditionally gone to an American, but before the election some diplomats predicted that the changing status of IOM, which joined the U.N. family in 2016, and the wide open election might cause governments to challenge that assumption.

The White House had strongly backed Isaacs, despite U.S. withdrawal from other international bodies and agreements, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council.

[hatrack]

4. Whomp Whomp!

As if Shitstain & Co. give a damn about the U.N., except for whatever ancillary prestige it might provide them when Shitstain dresses up and plays "statesman".

[kag]

5. No Way!!

You mean the international community doesn't trust the U.S. with policies regarding migrants and asylum seekers! That's just hard to believe! I mean, we are a NATION of immigrants! We're the land of the free! Give us your huddled masses...!

[bitterross]

6. Why the Hell would anyone vote for a US nominee? Especially and Evangelical.

Least of all, an evangelical. They have become the worst of the worst 45 Cult members.

The rest of the world is smarter than that.

[AZ8theist]

7. Isaacs was just a ploy

To head an organization the helps immigration in order to reverse immigration.
See Pruit, Scott; EPA. Devos, Betsy; DOE. Pompeo, Mike; DOS.

[Vogon_Glory]

8. Forgot About Ecclesiastes, Didn't You, Kenny?

For God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Ecclesiastes 12:14.

Evangelical fibbing just doesn’t work that well with us secularists. That stuff you put out on the Internet stays around for ever, and unlike televangelists’ speeches, your past doesn’t get buried under the next blizzard of lies..