Controversy is brewing over President Trump’s nominee for an important United Nations post.

Last week, CNN uncovered social media posts made by Ken Isaacs, who is nominated to oversee the UN’s International Organization of Migration, that criticized radical Islam and warned of “creeping sharia.”

Arguably the most offensive thing Isaacs tweeted was a warning that parents should pay attention to what schools teach their kids about Islam. Not exactly retweeting a call for genocide.

The CNN report follows a February Washington Post expose expressing outrage over similar social media posts shared by the UN nominee.

The Washington Post reported that Isaacs had once argued that Islam promotes violence and that American refugee policy should prioritize Christians.

Isaacs has apologized for his past remarks and told the Post, “I pledge to hold myself to the highest standards of humanity, human dignity and equality if chosen to lead IOM.”

The Trump administration is showing no sign of dropping its support for its nominee. Isaacs has years of experience helping running Christian relief organizations and worked in the George W. Bush administration as a top official in the US Agency for International Development.

His resume makes him a qualified candidate for the job, but the media wants to make sure a few social media posts derail his nomination.

The funny thing is that Isaacs’ posts are in line with the president’s views and are tamer than what Trump says himself. The nominee is in hot water for agreeing with the president, essentially.

The UN organization Isaacs is picked to lead is one which Trump should want a person who agrees with him to helm. IOM oversees migration issues in the world and is actively involved in resettling refugees throughout the West.

On the campaign trail, Trump was extremely critical of America’s refugee policies and of the 2015 migrant wave in Europe. His administration has dramatically cut the number of refugees the U.S. receives every year and withdrew from an UN agreement on migration because it undermined America’s sovereignty.

It makes sense that Trump would like a Trumpist for this job, someone who can be relied on to represent the administration’s agenda.

What Isaacs said in his social media posts lacked tact, but they do reflect what many Americans believe. The majority of Americans supported Trump’s travel ban against a handful of Muslim-majority countries. Fifty-six percent of Americans believe the country should take in Christian refugees but not Muslim ones, a more extreme stance than Isaac’s prioritization.

While not a majority, 41 percent of Americans think Islam encourages violence, as opposed to 49 percent who believe the faith does not. While “creeping sharia” may not be a major issue in the United States, it is a serious one in Europe. The Islamic lawcode exerts significant influence over many communities and presents many issues for European governments.

The views Isaacs expressed on social media were not “fringe.” They certainly weren’t politically correct, but so wasn’t Trump’s campaign platform. Millions of Americans voted for Trump because he argued for positions that had wide popularity but few leaders to champion them.

The media is trying to argue that Isaacs’ posts make him unacceptable for the job, in spite of his experience, in spite of most Americans agreeing with him and in spite of what the commander in chief espouses.

Sticking with Isaacs sends a strong message that the administration is serious about pushing an America First agenda on the world stage. To withdraw his nomination would be a capitulation to political correctness, the very thing Trump vowed to fight against in his campaign.

Follow Scott on Twitter and buy his book, “No Campus for White Men.”