Most people use Mozilla Firefox’s web browser to search – but the extreme Left has been using it to search… and destroy. Short-lived CEO Brendan Eich found that out the hard way, when the long-time employee was chased out of his job for holding a view that – at the time – even Barack Obama claimed to subscribe to. Eich, who was under the impression that Mozilla had hired him for his experience, not his political views, became the latest trophy on the Left’s wall when it was revealed that he’d given $1,000 to the successful Proposition 8 effort five years ago in California.

Despite Eich’s apology, an unfortunate capitulation to the kind of self-censorship activists demand, he ultimately resigned – joining the growing list of Americans whose reputations and careers are publicly flogged because they dare to express an opinion that reflects the diversity liberals insist they want. At two and a half weeks, Eich held the job longer than Craig James – who was fired after a single day at Fox Sports Southwest – but having been involved with Firefox since its inception 16 years ago, the fallout still stings. Like most Americans, he didn’t know that exercising the freedoms that make our nation great are the same ones that make him unemployable by the Left’s corporate bullies.

It’s been a difficult lesson to learn – and Eich isn’t the first. Craig James, Dr. Angela McCaskill, Peter Vidmar, and Phil Robertson have all been victims of the Left’s eerily Eastern European approach, where expression is not only forbidden but punished. This kind of “gay rights McCarthyism,” as Rod Dreher calls it, is so deeply permeating the workforce that a person’s moral views may as well be listed alongside legitimate qualifications on a routine job application. But this brand of exclusivity for inclusivity’s sake isn’t exactly making fans of some on the Left.

With Eich, the pendulum has swung so far that activists may actually be alienating the base it claims to represent. “Call it left-wing anti-liberalism,” writes the far-Left’s Michelle Goldberg, “…At such times, old-fashioned liberal values like free speech and robust, open debate seem like tainted adjuncts of an oppressive system, and it’s still possible for radicals to believe that the ideas suppressed as hateful won’t be their own.”

Andrew Sullivan, who no one would mistake for a conservative, had even stronger words for his movement. “The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out.”

Finally, the mask of “equality” has slipped, and even its cheerleaders are realizing that the real face of the movement is “hateful, intolerant, illiberal, persecutorial.” Nowhere is that more evident than GLAAD’s response to Eich’s ousting. “Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all.” Or, more accurately, welcoming to all who agree with us.

We all need to be clear: we are not merely contending with a different political or social point of view. The forces of political correctness intend to run over all freedom in America, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of assembly, of press. They cannot achieve their goal without oppression. And Americans will soon understand this. Some already do – like “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson. He stood up to these bullies, refusing to live as a captive of a small, tyrannical minority. He wouldn’t join the growing line of timid souls whose surrender only fuels the intolerance of the Left. What happened when Phil stood, as some others have done? People stood with him. And the bullies walked away.

Our resident historian, Bob Morrison helped put this in context with a story from America’s earliest days. George Washington understood this phenomenon when in 1783 he was urged to seize control of the government. “The people must act, I cannot,” he said. “But, Your Excellency, the people don’t understand the crisis that is upon us.” “The people must FEEL an evil before they can see it,” Washington responded. We are all feeling the evil. Soon, the country will see it too.

Paul Ryan’s Balancing Act

There are literally trillions of differences between the President’s budget and Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisc.) – but the biggest is obvious. Rep. Ryan’s budget balances – President Obama’s doesn’t. For his seventh attempt, the former Vice Presidential candidate put his stamp on what many believe to be his last budget proposal before moving over the House Ways and Means Committee. His swan song as Budget Chair is a 100-page blueprint that addresses everything from ObamaCare to Defense – and cuts $5.1 trillion in the process.

At the end of his 10-year plan, the budget would balance for the first time in more than 15 years. And, to the cheers of many, it would do so after a pretty significant boost to our overstretched and underfunded troops. Under Ryan’s approach, defense spending would jump by $273 billion more than President Obama’s budget. “The President does not provide the resources necessary to meet our national security strategy. His cuts would do grave harm to our military.”

Other noticeable differences between the only two budgets shaping the debate are Ryan’s overhauls to Medicare and Medicaid. After slashing hundreds of billions of dollars, the Wisconsin leader’s reforms would cede more authority to the states for Medicaid block grant programs and turn Medicare into a premium support program. Although the program would stay the same for people over 55, Ryan’s plan would allow “the Medicare recipient of the future [to] choose, from a list of guaranteed-coverage options, a health plan that best suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program.”

While conservatives disagree on some of the top-line numbers, one thing they can agree on is the full-repeal of ObamaCare, which this proposal includes. While Republicans discuss a range of alternatives for the President’s failed system, Ryan provides some wiggle room for a health care replacement that addresses some of the fundamental flaws of the current law. Also met by cheers was Ryan’s insistence on cutting some of the government’s ridiculous (and expensive) “climate change” projects.

What’s more, Congressman Ryan builds on his defense of religious liberty by making a point of funding the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was meant to combat some of the worst cases of persecution around the globe. “The United States should promote freedom of religion or belief around the world, given the importance of religious freedom to human rights, economic development, stability, and democracy,” the budget explains. Without religious freedom, there can be no economic freedom. Thank goodness Congressman Ryan understands what President Obama doesn’t: the path to prosperity starts where religious oppression ends.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.