In December 2020, Barack Obama told a group of Democratic donors: “This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement. Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality. The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry explained at the time that this showed Obama was aware that most Americans didn’t want a revolution. But he and these donors did. “And he wasn’t telling them to abandon that goal—only to be more underhanded about it!” Mr. Flurry wrote.

This perspective is key to understanding all of Obama’s moves. Even after completing two presidential terms, he has maintained a shadowy prominence. He is still underhanded in his goal of revolution, of “fundamentally transforming” America.

I kept this in mind when I watched Obama’s new Netflix documentary Working: What We Do All Day. Released on May 17, the four-episode docuseries is narrated by Obama, who makes occasional appearances throughout. According to Obama, the documentary is simply about sharing the “powerful stories of everyday Americans and their relationship with work.”

But to the viewer armed with the knowledge of Obama’s penchant for underhanded tactics, it becomes clear that this documentary is about a lot more than just sharing stories. It is about encouraging revolution.

The Agenda

Each episode of the documentary focuses on a particular type of job. The first episode dives into the service industry; the second is about middle-class jobs; the third is mainly about those working “dream jobs”—wealthy but not quite at the level of the uber rich bosses, who are the focus of the fourth episode.

But from the first episode, it becomes clear that there is a specific agenda. All those shown as a part of Obama’s staff are black women. Those shown working in the service jobs are all women: a Hispanic maid working at a hotel, and two black women working as a home-care aide and delivery driver.

The only white person shown in this entire episode was the supervisor at the hotel.

Meanwhile, the women shown were all complaining about their work. The home-care aide said that she didn’t think of care as “a job” but a duty. “I got in this to help people,” she says. A noble stance. Yet she seemed surprised when confronted by difficulty, training and hard work.

She quit her job after about two weeks. She couldn’t work and take care of her baby at the same time. No father is mentioned. The delivery driver is also a single mother. But the blame is placed on the service jobs.

“These jobs are more like a treadmill than a foothold,” Obama comments.

He doesn’t address the absent fathers. He doesn’t ask why these women aren’t married or even ask if their circumstances would be different if they were in traditional families. Instead, he blames the jobs and the system, explicitly and implicitly.

“A good job is one where you feel seen and valued,” Obama says. In doing so, he suggests that people of color, particularly women of color, only get bad jobs. In one fell swoop, he discards the idea of hard work and pride in that work.

Showing only women of color in these service jobs is an underhanded condemnation of the system. This is underscored by a scene when the home-care worker and two other black women are complaining about racism, gender equality and single motherhood.

There is plenty of blame for the system. There is zero accountability.

In all of this, Obama implies that the sole martyrs at the bottom of the totem pole are black women. But that’s not true. Black women comprise about 30 percent of the “caring” jobs. Fifty-eight percent of the “working class” is white. Seventy percent of janitors and cleaners are men.

From the very first episode, the documentary is trying to sell a lie. And it is very subtle about it. It blames the system and America’s laws, even blaming an all-white-male 1970s Supreme Court for all the problems.

The “American dream” is shown to be an unattainable dream for women of color. “I just want to be at home, on my porch, in my rocking chair; my fridge is full, my bills are paid, and my child is kept,” the former home-care aide said.

No mention of hard work, a husband or a father. There is a great desire for all the benefits and no mention of any accountability. That idea is the foundation of the documentary.

The American Dream

The documentary quickly shifts focus onto the rapidly shrinking middle class. It squarely places the blame on “skyrocketing inequality” as the cause of America’s failing economy. There is no mention of how inflation rose by 0.3 percent in President Donald Trump’s last four months in office and by 6.1 percent in Joe Biden’s first six months. No mention of the ballooning national debt or even how Democrats are currently fighting Republican efforts to impose a ceiling on federal spending.

The focus instead is on home-care aide workers who complain that they haven’t received a raise in three years and get paid less than fast-food workers. The intention is to expand the Medicaid budget, increase federal spending and ultimately raise taxes.

The purpose of showing the home-care aides is to tell viewers that we should be OK with those changes. In fact, there is an unspoken communication of pity for the underpaid home-care aides, an implicit persuasion toward solidarity to those in the middle class and above in order to solve the purported inequality.

“Once we have enough to survive, what’s next?” Obama asks. “What does it take to feel satisfied? For many of us, it’s about trying to find meaning.”

“When you have it all,” Obama asks, “what responsibility do you have to other people?”

That question is at the heart of the purpose of this documentary. It is the main question the documentary asks as it moves to the wealthier groups. Incidentally, white men feature more prominently from here on out. There is a software engineer, a homosexual hotel manager and a tech startup ceo.

Never mind that the United States has 1.8 million black millionaires—the most in the world by far. All of Africa, by comparison, has just over 100,000 millionaires of all races.

As a proportion of their overall populations, 6 percent of white Americans are millionaires compared to 5 percent of black Americans.

With only 4 percent of the world’s black population in America, a black person is more than 250 times more likely to be a millionaire in the U.S. than in all other countries in the world combined.

This reality is never mentioned or celebrated as a victory of the American dream. Obama ignores it completely in his documentary, instead presenting the fictional picture of inequality and structural oppression of women and people of color.

When you have it all, what responsibility do you have to other people?

Whites are presented as the haves, while blacks and women are the have-nots. The point of the documentary is to lead the viewer to want to address the purported inequality. The goal is to create a desire to change society—to create the desire to fundamentally transform America.

The Reaction

“If only Obama and the rest of the team behind this project worried enough to be clearer about the causes—and particularly the culprits—of the inequality Working documents,” Time magazine commented. They don’t believe the content was the problem. They think Obama just didn’t go far enough.

The Nation quoted Studs Terkel whose book inspired the documentary, saying that “Obama has got to remember his days as an organizer.” It goes on to criticize how “Obama has not forgotten, but he holds back, ever the pragmatist—just like when he was a president with a reelection campaign in front of him, a militant Tea Party backlash to contend with, and Mitch McConnell to outmaneuver in the Senate.”

Most leftist reviews agree that this documentary has managed to eloquently frame the problems facing America. But they are dissatisfied because there wasn’t an explicit call for revolution or accountability. Was that the intention? To leave viewers clamoring for action with no pressure-release valve?

Consider what Mr. Flurry said about Obama recognizing the need to be underhanded in his approach. Isn’t it likely that Obama deliberately left a lot unsaid? Did he intentionally keep things vague so that people felt like they arrived to his conclusion on their own, instead of feeling pushed?

One look into Obama’s past shows that he is every bit as radical as leftists want him to be, only he is more underhanded because he knows that most Americans don’t hate this country as he does.

Notice what Mr. Flurry writes in America Under Attack:

While in Chicago, Obama learned about the Saul Alinsky approach to community organizing. In his book Rules for Radicals, Alinsky praised Lucifer for being the “first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” Obama never met Alinsky personally, but he was trained by some of Alinsky’s closest followers. …

Throughout Obama’s political career, almost nobody would talk about these damaging influences on his youth …. They overlooked how these factors influenced Barack Obama’s view of this nation. And they failed to connect these facts to his declaration during a rally on Oct. 30, 2008, just prior to the 2008 presidential election: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Barack Obama wanted to fundamentally transform the nation because he disagreed with its founding principles. He believed that the Constitution was created by rich white people for rich white people and that whites have been stealing from everyone else. He was deeply sympathetic to an ideology that directly, even violently, opposes America’s constitutional government: communism.

Obama’s documentary is just one facet of his radical agenda. Watching it with open eyes reveals just how he is mobilizing all of the resources available to him to inculcate this radicalism on America, including the $65 million deal he signed with Netflix.

This is just one arm of many being used to fundamentally transform America. It might seem innocuous. But in reality, it is a subtle and insidious ode to socialism. It is a call to the redistribution of wealth, the abolition of capitalism, the empowerment of the government through expanding programs like Medicaid and even introducing a new version of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Overall, the documentary is a lie. It lies about inequality, oppression, race, economics, capitalism and government while completely ignoring the importance and the overwhelming success of America’s founding principles of trust, separation of powers, rule of law, family and religion.

The documentary is part of the attack on America. And it is even more insidious than anyone can imagine.

To learn more, request your free copy of America Under Attack, by Gerald Flurry.