A good one from John Nichols of The Naiton re: MLK and OWS:

Asked about “Occupy Wall Street,” Congressman West declared this week: “Martin Luther King Jr. would not have backed these types of protesters.”
Dr. King’s history, and his own words, say otherwise.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/164080/king-versus-tea-party-poor-peoples-campaign-occupy

Nichols quotes MLK:

“America is at a crossroads of history, and it is critically important for us as a nation and a society to choose a new path and move upon it with resolution and courage.… In this age of technological wizardry and political immorality, the poor are demanding that the basic needs of people be met as the first priority of our domestic program,” Dr. King declared, in launching the campaign that sought to proposed to bring the poor to Washington, march to the offices of federal agencies and camp out until action was taken to address economic inequality and injustice

And then,  like me,  he observes:

That sounds an awfully lot like Occupy Wall Street.

But, of course, West objects: “First of all, Martin Luther King, Jr. had a focus, a message. He was divinely inspired. I don’t know what the inspiration is for these individuals.”

West charged that the Occupy movement is really a left-wing assault on the existing economic order. “We’re starting to really see the face of who liberal progressives are,” warned West. “I think there is a danger in the people on Capitol Hill starting to embrace this movement.”

OK,  back to me.    Yeah,  if you want to call this a “left wing assault”  ,  then this is what we need.   MLK was constantly dubbed “left wing”,  “communist” , “socialist”,  “agitator”.   In fact, King described himself as a “democratic socialist”.  And yeah,  Mr. West,  if you don’t know what “the inspiration” for these individuals is (invoking a vision of the church lady asking “who could it be?  Hmmm?   Whoooo could it be?”)  My  reply toMr. West is that whwatever it is,  MLK would find ideological affinity with them,  and question the Tea Party’s acquiescence to the  status quo.  Everything the Tea Party does is status quo,  aside  from their rabid Anti-Obama hysteria.  The Tea Party BEGAN when Obama emerged as the likely candidate.  And the Tea  Party was off and running (at least that’s the way I remember it).