Why Were Egyptians Paid to Protest?

When are the media going to tell us the whole story? They tried using some slipshod, amateurish YouTube video as the excuse for all the Muslim protests, violence and murders, but that turned out to be a poorly executed hoax. They didn’t even try to make the video look legitimate. Now, Egyptian Prime Minister Kandil is admitting that many of those that rioted there in Egypt were paid to do so. What exactly is going on?

The media and White House (some say they’re one and the same) are still saying that Muslims are reacting to that video. Others say the riots and attacks were premeditated to coincide with the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Either way, I thought these were the types of people that needed no provocation to protest and riot, so why are they having to be paid, and who is paying them? Is Egypt alone in this or were protesters in other countries like Libya also paid? We’re not likely to get any of these answers anytime soon from our media.

It looks like if the Obama administration had their way, this is the perception that most Americans would be left with (in no particular order):

1) A Christian makes a video that “blasphemes” Islam, and the Middle East explodes with angry protests as a result.
2) Obama’s foreign policy is not to blame.
3) Christians should not be allowed to openly criticize peaceful Islam because doing so causes unrest in the Middle East. “Hateful” Christians are to blame for the Ambassador’s murder.

I’m sure many have fallen for these things. But thanks to the internet, things haven’t quite gone Obama’s way. Here’s more of a reality compared to the perceptions above:

1) The video was obviously done for the sole purpose of being used as the excuse for Muslim violence in the Middle East. The video, however, had nothing to do with the violence. The attacks and the riots were planned ahead of time, and Libyan officials had warned American diplomats about them 3 days prior to the events leading to the death of Ambassador Stevens. On top of that, even the protests can be called into question because of admissions that many were paid to act like demonstrators against the “anti-Muslim” film all for the media cameras.
2) While many protesters were paid (at least in Egypt), there were real protesters there who were demonstrating against drone strikes that killed suspected terrorists. Not to sympathize with those suspected terrorists, but drone strikes have been a prominent component of Obama’s foreign policy. At least under Bush, suspected terrorists were held in detention alive. Now, Obama just orders their demise without evidence, without interrogation and without charges. This is a dangerous precedent to set especially when the Obama administration considers Christians to be potential domestic terrorists. So, Obama’s foreign policy has much to do with the protests.
3) Recent headlines and news photos have shown “Sam Bacile,” the alleged producer/director of the film, being taken in for questioning. The Obama administration seems to want to send the message that protecting the reputation of Islam half-way around the globe is far more important than protecting the 1st Amendment here at home.

Paid protesters in Egypt are just more pieces of the puzzle. They raise more questions than answers. One thing is for sure: the media are not there merely just to inform us of current events. They are there to give us our opinion, and that means ignoring vital information and twisting facts to meet their agenda. If people knew how much the media lied, they would riot in the streets, and no one would have to pay them to protest.