Though his wife, Janet Parshall, may be more famous (and is coming up next), Craig Parshall is a loon in his own right. Parshall is senior vice president and general counsel of National Religious Broadcasters, but is probably more famous as an author of several legal suspense novels, including (with Tim LaHaye) Edge of Apocalypse.
As you might expect, Parshall is vociferously opposed to gay rights, and has claimed that giving gay people the right to marry will mean the deterioration of the health America and the end of free speech (“the next victim will be not just the traditional view of marriage and the health of society, but it’s going to be the free speech rights of Christians as well”), presumably based on projecting from how he would like to treat those who disagree with him if he got the chance. Also, gay rights are apparently not real rights – they couldn’t be, since the gay rights movement started “in a riot outside of a gay bar in New York” in 1969.
Parshall wouldn’t trust the legal system to recognize this, however. With regard to Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing Parshall and his sometimes coauthor LaHaye said that Kagan “presents a danger as old as the book of Genesis” and that her confirmation could be a sign of the End Times. So yes, the courts have been compromised by demons, or – as they put it – “legal globalists”, who are liable to approve international legal standards. Apparently they show how this situation “might create a modern-day legal nightmare for conscientious Christians” in their novel Edge of Apocalypse.
As an example of how the globalist mindset of the courts lead to “Spanish inquisition-type investigations” taking place in America, as well as a “tsunami” of threats to the freedom of speech (his ability to choose descriptive terms doesn't exactly make us ache to read a full-length novel by him), Parshall cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case that struck down anti-sodomy laws, which, as Parshall sees it, clearly paved the way for hate speech laws because the majority opinion used international law in its decision. If you feel there is something missing in the reasoning here (like, for instance, the hate speech laws Parshall mentions), you are probably not in his intended audience.
Parshall is also vigorously opposed to net neutrality, and apparently so should you too be if you want to “protect the internet” as a free and open “village green being the place where the public can get together to exchange ideas”. Parshall has not the faintest idea what net neutrality is, of course.
Diagnosis: Yet another one. And it’s the same errors, and the same kinds of delusional lunacy, as always. We’ve got nothing to say about it that hasn’t been said a thousand times already.