Do we actually want to get the money out of politics? A figure batted around is that Secretary Hillary Clinton will spend directly and indirectly in excess of two billion dollars on her campaign. Mr. Trump a whole lot less; Mrs. Clinton has a campaign staff ten times the size of Mr. Trump’s. Mrs. Clinton outspent Mr. Trump by $31 million in July alone, and has outspent him by $290 million thus far, and the campaigns are not yet in high gear.

Mrs. Clinton is paying off the insiders who operate consulting, polling, advertising, campaign management and lobbying firms owned and operated by the friends and families of the political and media insiders.

Those firms get paid an enormous amount of money for little work, enough so that they do nothing for three years and then sell influence disguised as consulting fees during the presidential campaign. The firms are owned and operated by the spouses and family members of the politically connected who wink, wink, are not involved or benefiting from the rigged system. Ask yourself how an elected official gets to be a millionaire many times over on a very good but not lavish congressional salary? Ask yourselves where the two billion dollars Mrs. Clinton will raise is going and to whom?

Our friends on the left side of the aisle constantly forget or down play Mrs. Clinton’s status as the candidate of the rich and powerful; Wall Street, Hollywood, the Silicon Valley all have spent millions to purchase her time and affections. The left will still repeat the mantra that the Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful, but not even close to true this time, not by a wide margin and absolutely not Mr. Trump.

Mrs. Clinton campaigned on getting the money out of the political process early in the primary race with Senator Bernie Sanders. He beat her up badly over her statements concerning Wall Street money and large donations; she wisely shut up and downplayed the role of money in politics from then on.

Mrs. Clinton’s love was purchased by Wall Street very early in the process; she put millions in her personal pocketbook from Wall Street and much more into her campaign war chest.

Mrs. Clinton also sent a not-so-subtle message to the folks at the corner of Wall and Broad Streets that she was open for business when she declared she would place former President William Clinton in charge of the economy. Bill Clinton is loved by the New York City uber rich for eight years of an economy that made them even more incredibly wealthy.

The interesting thing is that our liberal friends will tell us we need to revisit the Clinton economy. OK, I will agree with that, but to do it confirms the reality of “a rising tide floats all boats” or of the “trickle down economic theory.”

Quite frankly I stand confused by our liberal friends; they blindly follow the Democratic Party regardless of who is running. I have learned a bit of respect for the editor of this august publication, a true radical and socialist who believed in Senator Sanders and rejected Mrs. Clinton. He always maintained Mrs. Clinton is a capitalist puppet of the very rich and powerful. It pains me greatly, but I must agree with him. Please note he also rejects Mr. Trump.

Odd as it may seem, Mr. Trump, an unapologetic billionaire, is soundly ostracized by the donor class on the corner of Wall and Broad Streets. Could it be that they are terrified of a candidate who is not bought and paid for, who has not bowed down to them and pledged fidelity, one who is not openly or even clandestinely bought and paid for?

I also have a bit of respect for those who reject Mr. Trump because he is not as conservative as they would like. I consider myself a conservative, but one who is first and foremost concerned with national defense and keeping true to my sacred oath to the U.S. Constitution. I have no problem supporting Mr. Trump to be my Commander in Chief.

It is time for a change to someone who is not bought and paid for; time for a President Trump.