By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

March 12, 2008 ( – For over two years, the 3.4 million member American Family Association ran a boycott of the Ford Motor Company, gathering three quarters of a million online signatures on a pledge not to buy the company’s products.  It ended the campaign on Monday after confirming that Ford had mostly ended its support for homosexual political causes and publications.

AFA’s campaign against Ford was provoked by the company’s unusual enthusiasm for all things “gay.”  The company advertised in homosexual magazines and contributed to organizations that promote “gay marriage” and other atrocities against the family.  It also contributed to gay “pride” celebrations, and placed booths at such events.

The boycott quickly gathered steam.  Hundreds of thousands of people signed the pledge, and millions of AFA members received the organization’s lurid reports on Ford’s sponsorship of publications promoting sodomy and other perversions.  Many other pro-family organizations endorsed the boycott as well.

Shortly after the boycott began, Ford’s sales plummeted, and the company lost money almost every single month thereafter.  Ford’s continual slump was the subject of much discussion. Analysts began to wonder if it could survive.

However, if you didn’t know the AFA campaign was occurring, you are probably not alone.  As far as the mainstream media was concerned, it wasn’t happening either.  Despite the fact of the massive boycott, and despite the fact that Ford was losing billions of dollars annually, the mainstream media almost never mentioned it.

Although some outlets, including USA Today and CNN, reported the boycott at its inception, it was rarely acknowledged thereafter, despite the serious, continuing financial crisis experienced by Ford.  Month after month, quarter after quarter, the automotive giant reported staggering losses, while its competitors made profits.  The media, and Ford, blamed everything but the boycott.

Although the mainstream media didn’t seem to notice AFA’s devastating campaign, Ford’s dealerships did.  In 2006, at the beginning of the conflict, the Greater Texas Ford Dealers Advertising Fund, representing 78 state dealerships, sent a letter pleading with the company to concede to AFA’s demands.

“To be clear we strongly urge that Ford not only cease to advertise in homosexual related media and events, but in all politically charged and controversial media and events,” the dealers reportedly wrote.

The media’s failure – or refusal – to cover the boycott, however, didn’t prevent it from having its effect.  After months of negative publicity and financial losses, the automotive giant began to meet AFA’s demands.  According to the organization’s announcement on Monday, Ford is now “basically” complying with an original 2005 agreement to stop advertising in homosexual publications, and to cease funding groups that promote homosexual “marriage”.

Paradoxically, the nonexistent boycott suddenly sprang into being.  Business Week, Forbes, the Detroit News, and other publications ran stories on it, quoting Ford to the effect that the changes in its spending merely reflect cutbacks in its budget, not a change of policy.

Although Ford claims it still has a relationship with “Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays” and the “Human Rights Campaign”, two groups that support homosexual marriage, it has apparently modified its pro-homosexual spending sufficiently to satisfy the AFA.

The successful boycott of Ford is a powerful example of the influence that pro-family groups and individuals can have if they unite for a common cause.  The often discouraging abuse of the mainstream media’s power to influence our society’s perception of reality, of what is important or even what is real, proved to be of no avail against a determined and well organized pro-family organization.  Reader, take note.