It must be nice to be Jeff Bezos.
How do you become one of the richest men in the world by founding a company that only recently gave a thought to profitability?
Amazon has been around a long time. It’s one of the few Internet companies that was doing business 20 years ago, when I launched WorldNetDaily.com, now known as WND.com.
But it was less than three years ago that Amazon began to achieve any profits to speak of. And, even today, you’d be shocked to know how high its revenues are and how relatively low its profits are.
For instance, in 2015, Amazon’s fourth quarter revenues were an astronomical $35.7 billion. But its net income was, by comparison, a measly $482 million. Last year, Amazon’s fourth quarter revenue was up 22 percent to $43.7 billion. It’s net income was $749 million.
Of course, net income is after Jeff Bezos gets his astronomical salary, which has helped him to be a mega-billionaire.
I tell you all this so you don’t think what I’m about to tell you represents chump change for Amazon and Bezos.
The first profitable year for Amazon was 2013. Fourth quarter profits were $239 million and $274 million for the year. The year before, Amazon posted a loss for 2012 of $39 million.
What happened to make 2013 so much better than the year before?
Amazon won a $600 million cloud computer contract from the CIA. That was the difference – more than the difference.
Later that year, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million.
To put that another way, Bezos used less than half the money he got from the CIA to buy the Washington Post.
Do you think that was a sweetheart deal?
I do. And like others, I believe it’s something Americans should know about. For instance, the Washington Post often quotes unnamed CIA sources in its reporting. Yet, the Post doesn’t disclose that the CIA paid the owner of the paper more than twice what it cost to buy it. You won’t find any mention of this deal on the Washington Post’s Wikipedia page, either. Not worth mentioning, apparently.
Now I want you to imagine the CIA contracting with WND.com for, say, a measly $600,000. How do you suppose that would be covered by the Washington Post? How would it be chronicled in Wikipedia? Do you think I’d get a pass? I think not.
Who was CIA director when this deal with the Washington Post was finalized?
You remember John Brennan? He’s the former CIA director, named by Barack Obama, who testified to Congress in March that Russia “brazenly interfered” in U.S. elections, including actively contacting members of Donald Trump’s campaign – but he stopped shy of dubbing it “collusion.”
“I saw interaction that in my mind raised questions of whether it was collusion,” Brennan told Rep. Trey Gowdy, saying that he supported the FBI digging further. “It was necessary to pull threads.”
It was Brennan, a good friend of Obama’s, who said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI Director James B. Comey. Brennan has been a loyal progressive Democrat since he voted for the Communist Party presidential candidate in 1976.
The Washington Post has been on the Russian-Trump story like white on rice ever since – along with the New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the rest of the pack of jackals. This investigation has been going on since 2016, yet no evidence has been found to support the “collusion.”
Wouldn’t you like to see an investigation into the collusion between John Brennan, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, the Washington Post and the CIA?
I sure would.
After all, they were all involved in an actual monetary deal that could have profound implications for the future of America, American business and American journalism.
But that’s just me.
What about you?
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].