Pinoy artisans giving the effigy of former president BS “Noynoy” Aquino finishing touches before being paraded on the streets of Manila for the traditional leftist protest demonstrations usually punctuating State of the Nation Address. (The Philippines Soberano, Washington DC, January 2012)


Who could even think the American president is the obnoxious, subversive but overt agent?

President Barack Obama had just delivered his State of the Union address on January 2012 at Capitol Hill, the seat of the American Congress, and the insider reaction may have opened the Pandora’s box to a derivative of communism birthed in the Philippines, surprisingly all the way from Chicago, Illinois of all places, and that now is threatening to overtake events in our country.

In a story in the American Spectator written by Peter Ferrarra datelined January 25, 2012, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich asked: “Do we want the America of the Declaration of Independence? Or the America of radical Marxist revolutionary and social manipulator Saul Alinsky?”

Saul Alinsky in 1966, on Chicago’s south side, where he organized the Woodlawn area to battle slum conditions.

Gingrich, a former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, was summarizing his South Carolina victory, providing that will sharply clarify the choice the American people will have to make this year.

The American Spectator noted that one TV commentator indicated that most Americans do not even know who Saul Alinsky was. But that is exactly why Gingrich is so right to frame the debate this way, because with Barack Obama as their President, Americans need to know who Saul Alinsky was, and when Gingrich is done with his campaign, every American will.

“President Obama is not only a follower of Saul Alinsky, and literally a practitioner of his strategies and tactics for the radical socialist takeover of America. After graduation from Harvard Law School, Obama was an instructor of fellow Marxist comrades in the Alinsky philosophy and methodology of social manipulation for the radical Marxist organization ACORN,” the magazine stated.

Do these youth protesters in a private Catholic school exclusive for girls really know who are pulling the strings over them?

Gingrich said “The American people need to know this, and all about Alinsky, to make an informed decision on whether to vote for Obama for reelection. That vote would represent a fundamental rejection of America, and all it has stood for since 1776.”


America has long been the land of world leading prosperity, a true workers’ paradise. But the real point of Obama’s State of the Union last night was that all of that has to change now, because America is “unfair,” in the Alinsky/Marxist worldview.

Let’s give the President credit where credit is due. Obama is a very sophisticated Marxist philosopher, combining the highly advanced social manipulation tactics of Alinsky with careful, long developed insights in how to craft a modern, neo-Marxist message to sell to a majority of modern America.

This is what we heard in last night’s State of the Union. The real question this year is whether this generation of Americans can be duped into trashing the greatest, most prosperous, most successful nation in the history of the world, for a retrograde Marxist vision that thoroughly failed throughout the last century, and which the rest of the world has learned through hard experience is confused to the point of practical silliness.

This only indicates how much deep trouble America is in, with Obama as President, and his philosophy and worldview having taken over the modern Democrat party.

Gingrich concluded: “But the centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky…. “[W]hat we are going to argue is that American exceptionalism, the American Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution, the American Federalist papers, the Founding Fathers of America, are the source from which we draw our understanding of America.

“[Obama] draws his from Saul Alinsky, radical left -wingers, and people who don’t like the classical America.”            


The new buzzword that Barack Obama as early as his first presidential campaign in 2008 used was “community organizing” or what in Alinsky circles is acronymed “CO”.

Former partylist representative Tom Villarin (Fourth from left) with some of Akbayan’s foreign supporters.

The term was precisely verbally engineered to be covertly palatable. There is nothing covert in it except its long-term intentions of eventually taking over power. In fact in the internet, anyone can access the “History of Community Organizing in the Philippines”, complete with a powerpoint presentation.

The PPT says: “During the First Quarterstorm of the seventies, CO was introduced through the Philippine Ecumenical Council for Community Organization (PECO). The group organized in Tondo and established a Council of Tondo Foreshore Community Organization which (was) an organization of leaders…”

The presentation continued, “The Saul Alinsky method of conflict-confrontation developed in Chicago was adapted to conditions in Tondo. As a result, the Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO) was born.

The program was replicated in other parts of the Philippines, including the rural areas and usually introduced through Church structures. “The Alinsky CO method was refined to include reflection sessions, which were, in turn taken from Paulo Freire’s ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed”.

The powerpoint also said that eventually, the Alinsky practice subtly and slowly infiltrated the basic Christian communities (BCCs) in Mindanao that the Catholic Church organized after Vatican II. The CO strategy soon spread to some parts of Luzon and Visayas with the organizing that was “basically liturgical and employing Bible studies and other creative forms of worship” but soon twisting “the teachings and examples of Christ through socio-political work.”


 More light on this topic has been illucidated starting from page 294 of the book Movements and Democracy by Sidney Silliman and Lela Garner Noble, under the section NGO Impact on the Political Process. “Extending techniques developed in the 1970s and the 1980s, Philippine NGOs are shaping the political process through innovative strategies for political participation. Existing social institutions have been adapted to further the political goals of particular groups.

“The Kalingas and Bontocs of the Cordillera, for instance, extended the peace pact, or budong, beyond its traditional form to provide a culturally relevant context for their struggle against the government’s Chico Dam project, while indigenuous peoples in Mindanao used the d’yandi (blood oath) in a new form in order to organize against the Mt. Apo geothermal power project (Rood, chapter 6).”

Read further the nexus unveils itself, “The community organizing principles of Saul Alinsky were adopted, modified to Philippine context, and then extended throughout the country (see Caroll and Constantino-David, chapters 2 and 5).

“Paralegals multiply the resources of disadvantaged populations and peoples’ organizations with regard to legal matters and decrease the dependency of the local population on legal professionals (see Gloub, chapter 10). Networking and coalition building, innovative techniques in the Philippines because they unite organizations around programmatic goals and issues rather than personal ties, also serve to multiply the resources of civil society (see Constantino-David and Putzel, chapter 2 and 4).”


The book further says, “Distrusting traditional politics and more accustomed to opposing than to working with government, the NGO community by and large has not sought to gain control of the state via electoral process, even though NGO leaders recognize that elections are no longer the exercise in fraud that they were under President Marcos.

“However, given the lengthy experience of Filipinos with voting and the centrality of elections to the post-1986 political system, it is not surprising that a number of NGOs and NGO personalities have directed their attention to the electoral process.”

Father Joaquin Bernas, a known constitutionalist and social analyst, said the transition of electoral participation “will no longer be the legitimization of state rulers but the empowerment of agents who can invigorate the state to enable it to conquer the powerful social forces that prey on the misery of the weak and prevent more equitable development.”

In a very real sense, political parties have failed because it has been historically built around moneyed political dynasties and patronage politics instead of philosophies and core values.

In contrast, non-government organizations take on the Bernas principle as an objective, enabling them to play a direct and significant role in electoral contests.