I owe everyone an apology on this thread. I put up No. 18 after stumbling upon it. I scanned the article, it had a few sentences that looked intereresting, so I added it to the thread. Apparently, it also had a lot of nonsense, and I guess I should have paid more attention and read the while thing. A lesson was learned. Sorry.
So #18 was bogus? It had some factual matter that checked out, a lot of names I hadn't heard of, and a lot of detail that made my eyes glaze over. I guess I'll have to put the connection with the Southern Poverty Law Center into the "unproven" category, then, or into the "wait around and see if it is confirmed or denied" category. Darn.