There is one thing more predictable than knowing the identity of the person appearing on the next cover of “O,” Oprah Winfrey’s magazine: Conservatives trying to neuter Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and claim him as one of their own.

Ward Connerly, the combustible affirmative action foe, launched his mis-named American Civil Rights Institute on Jan. 15, 1997, Dr. King’s birthday. When the King family denied that Connerly was acting in the spirit of the slain civil rights leader, the California conservative, fired off a two-page letter to Martin Luther King III.

“I understand that you objected to the timing of my announcement and, in fact, characterized me as a ‘demagogue,’ “Connerly wrote on Jan. 29, 1997. “…If you believe the nation would declare a holiday in honor of Dr. King if his views about race mirrored those of Revered Jesse Jackson, for example, then I believe that you greatly misunderstand the reason why this nation honors your father.”

Wait, there’s more.

“I truly hope that you do not blur the legacy of your father by becoming the spokesman for the ‘preference cartel,’ to such an extent that Americans begin to think of Dr. King as a proponent of color-conscious policies instead of remembering him as a champion of a color-blind society.”

In addition to Connerly trying to lecture one of Dr. King’s sons on the significance of his father’s life, the California Republican Party used footage from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech to support Proposition 209, the ballot initiative outlawing affirmative action in the state.

That was tragic enough.

Now we have another attempt to misrepresent Dr. King’s work and legacy, this time coming from an organization that barely has more members than the number of letters in its name – Project 21.

One member, Mychal Massie, said in a press release last week: “John Roberts is the type of jurist who represents the beliefs of great Americans such as James Madison and Martin Luther King, Jr. …”

After being roundly criticized for linking Roberts to King, Massie sent out a second press release: “Dr. King’s agenda was for blacks to be able to sit at the lunch counter of their choice and for black children to attend desegregated schools. He marched for the rights of blacks to participate freely in elections and be able to purchase and live in homes they could afford. He was attacked and jailed in his quest to ensure that all Americans received equal treatment. I defy those feigning insult to cite one example of Judge Roberts not supporting those ideas.”

I didn’t feign insult, but I’ll accept the offer. In fact, I’ll cite more than one example.

Let’s start with electoral politics inasmuch as Massie raised the issue. Commenting on a Supreme Court ruling (City of Mobile v. Bolden) that addressed at-large voting that effectively prevented Blacks from winning a seat on the city council, Roberts characterized district-wide voting as “essentially a quota system for electoral politics.” He attributed that interpretation to Justice Stewart, who never used the term “quota” in his written decision. Dr. King opposed efforts to dilute the Black vote.

On the issue of affirmative action, Roberts argued that affirmative action relies on the “recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates.” That, too, is at variance with Dr. King’s definition and support of affirmative action.

In 1981, Roberts sent a memo to William Bradford Reynolds, assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Reagan administration, and his assistant, Charles Cooper, claiming that Justice Department lawyers were wrong to advise school systems to not only offer jobs and back pay to employees that had been discriminated against, but to those deterred from applying because of racial discrimination. Even Reynolds, who sought to nullify voluntary affirmative action programs across the nation, did not agree with Roberts on that point.

That same year, Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan stated that he planned to continue the Republican and Democratic tradition of enforcing an executive order requiring government contractors to maintain affirmative action programs. Roberts called that “offensive preferences,” even though the executive order specifically forbids quotas. Not surprisingly, Dr. King supported such programs.

I could cite even more examples. Suffice it to say that the record clearly shows that Judge Roberts does not come close to advocating what Dr. King lived and died for. Conservatives should claim their own heroes and stop pretending that Dr. King or any other sane person would endorse their lunacy.