The bassist for KISS, who can always be trusted to speak his mind and who, unlike many other entertainers, actually has something to say, gave us his take on Robert Redford, President Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney.

Regarding Redford’s statements against one-percenters, statements that only Occupy Wall Street types could love, Simmons said:

He means well, he’s a great guy. But it’s a bit hypocritical, since he’s part of the one percent, to address the 99 percent.

Simmons then went to speak to that fact that he doesn’t like all the class warfare, all the dividing of people into different camps.

Either we are all Americans, or you’re going to fall victim. This is the reason why the old Roman Empire died, it fell from within. Division from within is one of the stupidest things you can do.

Regarding Obama, Simmons basically called him a rookie, and stated anew his regret for supporting him in 2008.

I voted for [Obama], last minute. I wasn’t going to vote for him because he didn’t have a good resume. He only had two years of local political experience, he’s never run a company, he’d never been overseas, and he didn’t know any of the political leaders. I voted my conscience, based on some sort of – well, it’s the right time in history.

In other words, Simmons was driven to vote for Obama out of the same white-guilt that drove so many other Americans to vote for Obama in 2008. But no more. Simmons made it clear he is on board with the GOP in the coming election and that his favorite is Mitt Romney:

But I want Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to face off on the economic and political issues of our time. I want a real dialogue, and I, as a private citizen, want to be able to vote my conscience. More often than not, I want business men and business women in politics, not college professors.

“Shout it Out Loud,” Mr. Simmons. Such common sense is sorely lacking in today’s conversation.

Silverman certainly catches her share of flak from the anti-Israel left; she was recently criticized simply because a pro-Israel group happened to buy a bloc of tickets to one of her shows.

But to the extent that she is trying to strike a critical pose–as she did in a recent tweet lampooning Newt Gingrich’s staunch pro-Israel views–there is no better illustration of why Obama risks losing pro-Israel support in the 2012 election.

On the one hand, Obama is attempting to claim he has not just been pro-Israel, but more pro-Israel than any president in American history.

On the other, his penchant for confrontation with the Israeli government, and the anti-Israel passions of his core left-wing supporters, tend to undermine his pitch. Democrats are trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel–and it’s not quite working.

Silverman’s posture is an example of that contradiction–not because it’s axiomatically “anti-Israel” to be pro-Palestinian, but because those on the pro-Israel side who support a two-state solution have become increasingly aware that their empathy is not reciprocated. It is hard to imagine a Palestinian actor provocatively setting her location to “State of Israel,” for example.

In 2008, Silverman led “The Great Schlep,” an effort to bring pro-Obama Jews to Florida to convince their allegedly racist grandparents to give the black candidate their swing-state vote. Part of that effort included reassuring Jews about Obama’s support for Israel: “Barack Obama’s foreign policy is much more stabilizing than John McCain’s, and much better for Israel,” Silverman claimed.

It’s harder to make that case today, when Obama–and, now, Silverman–seem to be at pains to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause (and when the Middle East is more unstable today than in 2008).

Criticism of Israel is not the issue; sometimes that criticism is entirely appropriate. What’s troubling to Silverman’s intended audience is that they are being asked to accept that criticism of Israel, or solidarity with the Palestinian cause, is the essence of support for Israel.

Similarly, criticism towards Israel–or outright hostility–has become the litmus test of true membership in the “progressive” movement, creating a dilemma for pro-Israel Democrats who otherwise empathize with the Occupy Wall Street movement and its purported “social justice” aspirations. Occupy activists, for example, have announced their intent to protest and disrupt the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

If Obama were to confront his allies in the Occupy movement, and if Silverman were to confront the anti-Israel left in general, her case for Obama might be a bit more convincing.

The list contains celebrities you’d expect to see listed. Singers Marc Anthony, Jay-Z and Fergie, NBA players Vince Carter and Grant Hill, CEO Warren Buffett, and the well known “philanthropist” Chelsea Clinton (she’s described as a philanthropist on the list) all made the cut. None of this is too surprising until you scroll on down and find Nick, Joe, and Kevin Jonas listed as “surrogates” for Obama’s re-election.

Upon seeing their names, my first thought was: “Wow, children’s television stars. I guess after they teach our kids how to count they can teach them to vote for Obama.” After all, kids are their target audience, as the kinds of awards they’re nominated for demonstrate. Just last year Nick and Joe Jonas were nominated for Kids’ Choice Awards in the Best TV Actor category, and Joe received “two nominations at the 2011 Teen Choice Awards: one of which was ‘choice male hottie.’” I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried, folks.

But upon further reflection, the hypocrisy of the Jonas Brothers’ support for Obama simply wasn’t funny anymore.

For here are three kids, now young men, who live sheltered, cushy lives and who “made it” musically only because the Disney Channel force-fed them down the throats of viewers after signing them to a Disney record label, Hollywood records, in 2007. Yet they’re supporting a President who spends 99 percent of his time talking about how advantaged people who live sheltered, cushy lives are not paying their fair share.

Think about it: When Nick Jonas celebrated his 16th birthday in Sept. 2008, he did so by playing baseball with his brothers and some friends in Dodgers Stadium. The cost for doing this for two hours was about $30,000.

Don’t get me wrong; I have no problem with people being rich. As a matter of fact, I wish everyone were able to be rich and spend thirty thousand dollars for a two-hour birthday bash. However, we should all have a problem with a bunch of kids, now young men, who support a President who’s doing everything in his power to change our economy so that it’s and harder to become rich, especially when these kids are some of the very ones who benefited from the kinds of help Obama calls “unfair.”

The bottom line: the list of 194 makes it clear that once the Jonas Brothers pick up their Kids’ Choice Awards and finish teaching your kids how to count, they’re going to encourage them to vote for Obama.

The shaggy crooner is the exception to the rule.

FoxNews.com reports that most singers balk when a Republican wants to co-op their songs for campaign events. Things are mighty different when it’s a Democratic politician singing a familiar song.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton used Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” in his successful 1992 presidential bid, Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry played Springsteen’s “No Surrender” in his 2004 campaign, in 2008 Sen. Barack Obama revived Springsteen’s “The Rising,” and that same year fellow Democrat John Edwards used Mellancamp’s “Our Country.” All of these came and went without objection from the artists. In fact, except for 2008, when Barack Obama was sent a “cease and desist” letter from the legal team for Sam Moore (one half of the legendary duo Sam & Dave) over the unlicensed use of “Hold On, I’m Comin’” as background beat at his rallies, its hard to find examples of Democrats getting taken to task.

“I would say certainly in recent years, there’s been a greater unlicensed use of songs by Republican candidates,” Iser, said. “The point that the musician is making is not about the [political] party. The position they’re taking is: This is what we do for a living, we are protected by copyright, and if you’re running for election, you need to respect the law. It just is a coincidence really, simple as that.”

Iser stresses that when it comes to music and campaigns, artists and songwriters only want to protect their intellectual property rights and ensure that they aren’t involuntary endorsers of candidates and campaign messages.

So … it is about the message after all. Why not say so in the first place?

This week, Moore must have gulped down some truth serum before appearing on the low-rated CNN show “Piers Morgan Tonight.”

Moore, citing figures gleaned from a recent Washington Post study, reminded Morgan that President Barack Obama sure loves pocketing big bucks from the very same Wall Street he often rails against.

MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, “The Washington post” three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all — than all eight Republicans combined. I don’t want to say that, because if that’s the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we’ve got a much bigger problem.

But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?

Sounds like the makings of a new muckraking documentary, “Barack and Me.” In Moore’s latest film, he tries to pin down the Commander in Chief to find out why the president keeps accepting money from those evil Wall Street types. Moore must battle both a sycophantic press and the president’s inner circle to get that much-anticipated one-on-one time with The One.

Few citizens anywhere would have a living room large enough to hang this very bloody-looking billboard in. Secondly, few of us are “Connoisseurs.” Thirdly, is it really worth “The Connoisseur’s” time to try and understand this painting? A true art connoisseur instantly said the object of discernment is Rockwell’s impressive version of a Jackson Pollock. “No. 00,” perhaps.

I, for now, can only come up with “A Satellite Photo of Some Third Millennium, Urban Nightmare,” or, “The Fundamental Transformation of the United States of America.”

This painting within a painting, given the Progressive Obsessions of art critics, might eventually be worth more at a Sotheby Auction than the painting itself. “The painting within the painting?! Wrap it up and throw the rest in the wastebasket! I’m a rich man who hates Norman Rockwell but loves Jackson Pollock!!” In other words, such a destructive buyer would be some mega-rich Progressive. He’s possibly George Soros or the now exponentially enriched Jeffrey Immelt.

With both Sarah Palin and Herman Cain being, for me at any rate, the political equivalent of Norman Rockwell, I believe this visual version of the Progressive New World Order, hanging so impressively on the museum wall, looks out, beyond The Connoisseur, at the conservative writers and readers of Big Hollywood, and reminds us of how prophetic Norman Rockwell can be.

The painting within the painting could be called “Post OWS” or “The Progressives’ Zuccotti Park” or “A Bird’s Eye View of the Obama Nation.” Suggestions for other titles in the comment section would be most welcome. “The Connoisseur” is an unsurpassable description of the entire painting.

If, as I believe, this revealing glimpse of Norman Rockwell’s prophetic insight doesn’t hold you spellbound as it has myself, then you are not a Norman Rockwell fan.

While composing this editorial I mistakenly typed Norman Mailer instead of Norman Rockwell! Now there is more than a Freudian slip of my computer fingers. Mailer vs. Rockwell?!

If, indeed, The Connoisseur is staring at an aerial portrait of The Progressive New World Order, Post OWS, Zuccotti Park or The Obama Nation Itself, we have Norman Mailer looking at this bloody mess from a hotel window in Chicago during the 1968 Democrat Convention.

I spent a very unpleasant evening at a dinner table with Norman Mailer. The author was convinced that I should play the role of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in whatever project that he was dreaming of. I was still a blind Liberal then, so I threw my napkin at Norman Mailer with surprising accuracy.

He held the napkin up and then said, rather poetically, “That hurt.”

I said, before my next drink of wine, “I intended it to.”

I, now utterly sober for eight years, would avoid any further contact with Norman Mailer, living or otherwise; and I still wouldn’t want to get even near a script with Giuliani in it, let alone play the role.

I lived under Mayor Giuliani as a New Yorker. He’s one of the reasons I left that once-greatest-city-in-the-world. His lawyer’s defense of legalized abortion and “strict construction” is only the beginning of why I don’t trust anything about him.

What has all this to do with Norman Rockwell, The Connoisseur and Bringing America Home?

If anyone contributed to Carrying America Off To A New World Order, it would be Norman Mailer et al. The et al includes Henry Kissinger and reminds me that the only reservation I have about a President Herman Cain is that his reading on American foreign policy includes a respectful nod to Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

Ergo my title for America’s general enemy, those who helped to drag the United States away from both its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution: “The Bipartisan Progressives of The New World Order.”

Herman Cain’s utter lack of membership in the Washington Beltway Fraternity is one of his greatest assets and recommendations.

Herman Cain’s governing principles are meat and potatoes Norman Rockwell and, undoubtedly, offer the only way to renew America and insure us that Mr. Cain himself is the most reliable, Presidential candidate to Bring America Home Again.

Since Mr. Cain is now becoming the main target for both Democrats and dueling Republicans, I look forward to cheering him on during this year-long home stretch for Republican candidates. They have already become, in some instances, too familiar to offer anything new to the America audience.

The test now for Herman Cain the frontrunner is how much grace under pressure he can sustain in the grueling year ahead. So far he is proving to be the most regal candidate of them all and unquestionably the most presidential.

I suspect that his entire Presidential campaigning, particularly in a polarized America, will prove vastly more challenging to Herman Cain than the Presidency itself. His clarity of purpose will balance out any dilemmas he might face as occupant of the Oval Office.

The fact that, as President, he no longer just wants to “make a difference” but actually is achieving that goal will be more than enough satisfaction to keep him in, yes, joyously fighting shape. It has been his Destiny all along to become President of the United States and bring America back from the brink of Marxist suicide.

I find Herman Cain an even more comforting voice than that of Ronald Reagan. It has the wisdom of true suffering in it, yet without self-pity. He will lead not only by example but by the very rich sound of his voice.

You now have more than the perfect American President for this Third Millennium. You have the United States reunited and coming home to heal.

After what has happened to America since John F. Kennedy’s assassination, that would be a miracle.

The science fiction thriller adds a Marxist polish to a tale owing plenty to both ‘Logan’s Run’ and ‘Bonnie and Clyde.’ And while the premise teases the kind of dystopian future seen in sci-fi classics like ‘Blade Runner,”In Time’ ends up with precious little to share beyond its pretty leads.

Justin Timberlake stars as Will Salas, a blue-collar type in an alternative America where people only live to be 25. After that, you have to earn every second of your existence. Time is the coin of this realm, and a person’s wealth status is displayed in green glowing digits on their forearm. Thus, folks like Will literally live paycheck to paycheck, while the rich exist in walled-off communities where they’re guaranteed immortality.

Will’s life changes when a “rich” stranger transfers a hundred years of time to him out of the blue. That exchange draws the attention of both a local gangster (‘I Am Number Four’’s Alex Pettyfer) and a professional “Time Hunter” (Cillian Murphy). Our buff hero ends up finding common ground with a socialite’s daughter named Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), and after a few awkward moments they decide to redistribute income, Robin Hood style.

“Is it stealing if it’s already been stolen?” Will says.

‘In Time’ pays lip service to living life to the fullest, but it would need far richer characters to hammer that point home. Instead, we get endless running, Marxist sound bites (“there’s more than enough”) and precious little chemistry between our leads. It’s hard to light a flame when you’re forced to recite lines like this:

Sylvia: “You saved my life.”

Will: “When?

Sylvia: “Now, and every day since I met you.”

Timberlake continues to prove he deserves a big screen career, but the role of Will Salas does him few favors. The screenplay just lies there as if its own life clock expired moments before the film began. Seyfried avoids the spoiled, rich brat archetype but does little else to elevate the material. She does earn points for running in some very punishing heels.

There’s a wonderful, pitch-black story poking around the edges of ‘In Time,’ and a few snippets of conversation hint at the film it might have been.

“Your mind can be spent, even if your body’s not,” one aged millionaire says, a rebuke to anyone who ever dreamed of immortality.

The film’s rich versus poor grudge match plays out in crude fashion, like a viral video which packs fury but little common sense. Apparently, in this future realm, the rich don’t have to work hard to make their millions worth of time credits. What’s not addressed is exactly how the rich steal from the poor. We live in a society where upward mobility is the true coin of the realm, but the culture on screen here won’t allow a workaday shlub to change his social status. Why? It’s one of countless questions left unanswered by a maddeningly vague story.

Perhaps the film’s silliest moment comes with an homage to Sylvester Stallone’s arm wrestling epic ‘Over the Top.’ It’s never a good sign when a film tips its cap to a clunker.

‘In Time’ delivers a bravura concept even right-of-center audiences can admire. Time is given, stolen and earned, and after a while you stop caring how much time is left on our hero’s forearm odometer.

In summary, he used his usual tactic of “divide and conquer” by setting “the people” against the “the rich,” which his ongoing attempt to place the blame for the Obama economy on the backs of Congressional Republicans and wealthy Americans.

Ironically, while trying to talk to “average Americans” (as if he were one of them), Obama didn’t mention the “undisclosed meeting” he’d held with some of Hollywood’s rich execs yesterday. The President didn’t mention that he’d asked those execs for “their help to engage the Hollywood community, in particular, and the general public at large.” Nor did he point out that his whole persona is so fake, so truly fraudulent, that he’s literally hoping these wealthy, influential Hollywood elites can “help [him] shape the national political conversation heading into a tough race in 2012.”

Note to President Obama: The conversation template is already set. That template is a discussion of your absolute failure as a president.

At a Los Angeles fundraiser on Tuesday night, Obama looked out at people who had paid $5,000 apiece to attend and said: “This campaign has never been about glitz and glory, or just the blind pursuit of power. [Rather,] we are determined to create a better future.” I’m sorry, but there’s not a Hollywood executive anywhere who can make such statements believable.

The industry already did what it could to help elect him in the first place, from celebrities bashing and berating Gov. Sarah Palin across media outlets to throwing massive fundraisers to line his campaign coffers.

Obama absolutely has to have more than three quarters of a billion dollars in those coffers if he’s to have any chance of destroying his Republican opponent. Even then, Obama has got to depend on Hollywood to rewrite the history of the last three years in such a way that those of us who’ve lived it, who’ve lost jobs, homes, and savings during it, will actually believe that this economy is Speaker Boehner’s fault (although he only became Speaker in 2011).

Or they have to make us believe that it’s President George W. Bush’s fault (although he left office in January 2009), or that it’s the fault of the rich (although Obama is shamelessly draining them of their wealth one new tax at a time).

Nope, this mess is Obama’s fault. And there’s nothing a group of Hollywood execs can do to make us love “hope and change” again.

In both of those interviews, Leno made the central point of his conversation the perceived gaffes and weak points in the GOP candidates’ statements and policies. What I defended was that at the very least, as Leno grilled them, his guests were given the chance to respond. And, at the time, it made sense for Leno to drill down on those issues because they were the elephants in the room.

Well, when President FailureTeleprompter arrived on the ‘Tonight Show’ set, you would think the herd of elephants that follow Obama everywhere had never existed at all.

Here’s a rundown of Leno’s talking points questions:

How awesome is your foreign policy? How great is is that you and Hillary came together for America? How about your approval rating being three times higher than Congress?  Do you find Mitch McConnell’s desire to defeat you as unpatriotic as I do? Great job quitting smoking! How do you cope with the awesome responsibility of being President? How were those chicken and waffles? How’s the family? How about that heartbreaking NBA lockout?

Nothing about the failed stimulus. Nothing about Solyndra, Fast and Furious, unemployment or record deficits.

As a longtime defender of  Jay Leno, I think he’s done real damage to his non-partisan everyman image.

At least he has with me.

—–

—–

Charlton Heston as Judah Ben Hur, the Jewish hero—notice the Star of David necklace—of Ben Hur, 1959.

The Los Angeles Times is, like the NY Times, a reliably anti-Israel newspaper whose liberal/progressive/leftist slant often veers into  support for the Jew-hatred that is the foundation of Palestinian terror.

Even their entertainment articles frequently marinate in a radical ideology that extends to an ignorant and vile denial of Jewish, not to mention literary history.

In this brief announcement of an anniversary release of a Ben Hur DVD, the Charlton Heston character, Judah Ben Hur, is referred to as a “Palestinian nobleman.”

In the book and in all the movies Judah Ben Hur is a Jewish merchant.

This charade of so-called Palestinian history is a replacement ideology, Jewish history erased by faux Palestinians, a post-modern construct with zero historical basis.

I might add that this is also a fabrication of movie history.

This is a classic example of the big lie that was used by the Nazis to persecute and ultimately commit genocide against the Jews. This strategy is being used by the Muslim world, Arab, Turkish and Persian, to demonize the Jewish people and create an environment where the murder of Jews is not only acceptable but necessary.

Remember, The Los Angeles Times withheld the video of footage showing Barack Obama celebrating with PLO terrorist spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Apparently the Jew-hatred rampant that evening would have destroyed Obama’s presidential aspirations.

The Los Angeles Times is an enthusiastic partner in jihad.

I’d like to thank my friend Yisroel Medad of My Right Word for bringing this stealth piece of Jew-hatred to my attention.

William Wyler‘s 1959 epic, “Ben-Hur,” which dominated the Academy Awards in winning 11 Oscars, including best film, director, actor (Charlton Heston) and supporting actor (Hugh Griffith), is getting the superstar treatment in Warner’s 50th-anniversary ultimate collection edition arriving Tuesday in both regular DVD and Blu-ray.

Based on the novel by Lew Wallace, the period drama revolves around Judah Ben-Hur (Heston), a Palestinian nobleman [bold font by Big Hollywood] who is enslaved by the Romans, engages in one of the most thrilling chariot races ever captured on screen, and even encounters Jesus Christ.

The film was restored frame by frame from the original 65-millimeter camera negative and digitally remastered. Among the extras on the three-disc set are the new feature-length documentary “Charlton Heston & Ben Hur: A Personal Journey,” written and directed by the actor’s son, Fraser C. Heston; highlights from the 1960 Oscar telecast and the 1925 silent version starring Ramon Novarro.