As Clinton visited South Carolina, I couldn’t help but notice a trend. I couldn’t help but allow my mind to wander as she met with and campaigned (for two days in a row) with mothers of children killed by gun violence, including Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin. I couldn’t help but allow my mind to wander as she was interrupted during her rally in South Carolina by a group of boisterous Black Lives Matter protesters.

If I’m being honest, I was a little disgusted. As Hillary Clinton probably solidified her 60 percent lead among Black voters I was left thinking #WhichHillary?

My first matter of concern is that secretary Clinton is just inconsistent. Is this the Hillary that spent a considerable amount of her time as the first lady lobbying for legislation? Is this the same Hillary that supported the1994 crime bill during former president Bill Clinton’s tenure? The bill that brought about “They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators’ “? Now Hillary admits that some of the legislation that she pushed for has done monumental damage and she would be right about that. Nick Tuner, president and director of the Vera Institute of Justice says "If you're a black baby born today, you have a one in three chance of spending some time in prison or jail. If you're Latino, it's a one in six chance. And if you're white, it's one in 17. And so coming to terms with these disparities and reversing them, I would argue, is not only a matter of fairness and justice but it's, I would argue, a matter of national security." Tuner is right, Hillary knows it and she knows that Black millennials know it – activist Ashley Williams showed us that.

Hillary’s flip-flopping hasn’t just caught the attention of activists. Journalist Anderson Cooper addressed the secretary during a democratic presidential debate by saying “you were against same-sex marriage now you’re for it. You defended president Obama’s immigration policies now you say it’s too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozens of times; you even called it the gold standard, now suddenly last week you’re against it. Will you say anything to get elected?” Of course Clinton repudiates the claims, but can we really trust Clinton when she says “I take a backseat to no one, when you look at my record for standing up and fighting for progressive values” in the same year that she maintains “you know, I get accused being kind of moderate and center… (Smirking)I plead guilty.” When it comes to legislation and her stance regarding it Clinton is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot.

Making herself at home once again, Clinton is met with nothing short of open arms by much of the Black community. The Clinton’s make themselves right at home in churches, Historically Black Colleges/Universities and at meetings with Black civil rights activists and politicians. My stomach churns as she tries to court “the Black vote” once again. My stomach churns because I know that she’s inconsistent. She’s helped lead us tothe largest increase in federal and state prison inmates in American history. She’s not doing us any favors with her criminal-justice reform; she’s cleaning up the mess that she helped to create in 1994.

One reason for secretary Clinton’s immense inconsistencies might be her major contributors. Unlike Sanders, 18 of Clinton’s 20 donors have been corporations or companies that provide services to corporations. Of that, over one-third of Clinton’s top 20 donors are Banks. Big Banks bring big problems. Today, money plays the dominant role in politics, where money becomes political speech and action. Huge discrepancies concerning education, poverty and policing can almost always be traced back to this corporate money trail. Corporations literally purchase their influence over politicians by funding political campaigns, and with an almost 30 year political career one can only assume that Hillary knows this.

To get the full picture read The Case for Reparationsby Ta-Nehisi Coats, who offers us a glimpse into the world of predatory loans. I simply couldn’t write it better.

“We just went right after them,” Beth Jacobson, a former Wells Fargo loan officer, told The Times. “Wells Fargo mortgage had an emerging-markets unit that specifically targeted black churches because it figured church leaders had a lot of influence and could convince congregants to take out subprime loans.”

Coats continues.

In 2011, Bank of America agreed to pay $355 million to settle charges of discrimination against its Countrywide unit. The following year, Wells Fargo settled its discrimination suit for more than $175 million. But the damage had been done. In 2009, half the properties in Baltimore whose owners had been granted loans by Wells Fargo between 2005 and 2008 were vacant; 71 percent of these properties were in predominantly black neighborhoods.

Not all affected by predatory loans are Black, but predatory loans affect Blacks disproportionately and discriminately. I think we all could agree that calling Black customers “mud people” and loans “ghetto loans” is discriminatory. Wells Fargo, thankfully, is not on Clinton’s list of donors but Goldman Sachs is. Goldman Sachs, yet another huge, Wall Street, under regulated banking and investment firm, has also been accused of conducting sub-par business by offering these sub-prime loans, with interest rates as high as 125 percent. Goldman Sachs has ensured profits by selling to most sophisticated products (loans with incredibly complex language) to the least sophisticated barrowers – low-income persons or immigrants who are getting low leaser rates that later shoot up to astronomical rates. These deplorable practices are not only funded, but they are securitized. How so? They offer a politicians like secretary Clinton $821,031 to fund their campaigns. Goldman Sachs has bought its political influence and, once again, big money wins – not to mention that secretary Clinton had a front row seat to the deregulation of Wall Street during the Clinton years. In recent years some of the most politically active companies in the U.S. have collectively spent about $5.8 billion influencing (buying out) the government. As a way of thanking them for silencing our voices and taking advantage American citizens we pumped $4.4 trillion into their businesses.

This business as usual mentality is precisely what caused the housing crisis of 2008. This type of business that sees the immeasurable loss faced by our most vulnerable as the cost of doing business must be stopped. #WhichHillary is right. Which Hillary was she in 1964 when she was a self proclaimed “Goldwater girl” – working for the campaign of the same Barry Goldwater who said he would “have to” vote against The Civil Rights Act of 1964 when questioned? Which Hillary was she when she pushed for the Welfare Reform Bill – the same bill that left many of the children she had claimed to care so much about in childhood poverty? Which Hillary was she when it became lawful to deny former drug offenders federal financial aid for college? Which Hillary was she when the campaign that she supported denied those same people access to public housing, ensuring that they would not have access to housing upon release from prison? Which Hillary was she when in 2008 she said “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening…”? Which Hillary was she when she charged $225,000 in speaking fees at The University of Nevada, Las Vegas while talking about lowering student loan debt? Which Hillary was she when she was using money gathered by lobbyists linked to the private prisons industry?

It’s about time that we demand politicians to show a certain level of urgency and commitment when addressing our problems, and they can’t do it while making profiting from our weakness. Hillary needs to hop off the backs of the Black-Americans she expected to carry her to victory. Hillary is not for the people, and most certainly isn’t for Black people.