Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Material Girl treats boy like a pair of shoes

posted at 8:45 pm on October 17, 2006 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

I’m sure you’ve heard about Madonna mail-ordering a boy from Malawi. If you haven’t, here’s the gist. The aging pop tart (full disclosure: I never liked her or any of her songs, at any time, ever) had the Hope Orphan Care Centre in Mchinji, Malawi email her pictures of 12 kids. She picked one on sight, and though local law in Malawi forbids foreigners from adopting Malawi kids, the country’s courts made an exception and Madge walked away with 13-month-old David Banda. Money apparently can buy you love, or someone to pretend to love.

When the orphanage demanded that she make a donation before she could get the boy, she did. But she attached some interesting strings to it: She reportedly forced the school to start teaching kabbala, Madonna’s fashionable mystical hocus-pocus religion, for which she abandoned a very, very lapsed Catholic faith. Imagine the uproar if, say, Tom Cruise bought a kid and made the boy’s school mates convert to Scientology as part of the price. That’s the uproar that Madonna’s obnoxious move did not cause.

And now there’s another twist: Either she or the orphanage lied to the boy’s father in order to get the father’s permission to release his claim to David. Yes, David has a dad, and a grandmother. He was placed into the orphanage after his mother died, and his father visits him often. The father, Yohane, is a committed Christian. And the orphanage told the illiterate but committed Christian that a “very nice Christian lady” was coming to adopt David.

Nice.

Christian.

Lady.

Madonna?

madonna

“I’ll take…that kid.”

The foul-mouthed fool who has built an entire career on going out of her way to offend Christians–but notably, not Muslims or members of any other faith–who hangs herself on crosses during her concerts and once published a book full of naked pictures of herself, a “nice Christian lady?” Try “none of the above.”

Somebody’s lying. And the boy’s family isn’t amused:

Yohane’s family members have written a letter to the orphanage requesting that David not be taken out of the country by a “rich white donor” and that he be raised with a knowledge of Malawian culture.

As for Madonna, her criteria for selecting young David from a set of a dozen strangers was that he is “beautiful” and makes her happy. Like a pair of new shoes. For this beautiful boy she paid a total of $4 million, $3 mil to the orphanage with the promise to spend another mil producing a documentary about the plight of children in Malawi.

Four million dollars would have gone a long way toward relieving that plight, and if she had had a shred of good judgement and class she could have helped out quietly, without corrupting the Malawi courts, its orphanages, separating a family across an ocean and making a spectacle of her idiotic self.

But Madonna is incapable of exercising anything other than her muscles, her animal instinct for shock value and her pocket book. And now, she’s a mother of three.

(h/t Chris)


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Thank you, Bryan, for putting voice to what I have been thinking about this whole affair.

I always thought it odd that she picked the boy out from a dozen pictures, but the media never thought it to be unusual.

I thought it odd, too, that no one mentioned her past and present anti-christian behavior when mentioning the description of her as a “nice christian lady”.

Why would she “choose” a child who still has a parent? Was he simply the most photogenic? It sounds as if the father may have been bullied by this “nice christian orphanage”, who couldn’t wait to get their money from the “nice christian lady”.

BlueStateBlues on October 17, 2006 at 9:06 PM

I don’t think the word “mother” is appropriate in this case. I’d say “guardian,” but she is probably incapable of that as well.

tiekitwist on October 17, 2006 at 9:07 PM

So David was in the orphanage because his remaining family were too poor to care for him? Better than starvation?

I guess she had no choice. Everybody is getting one!

Axe on October 17, 2006 at 9:12 PM

PS: Bryan, that Peyser article pulls no punches, does it? “Refreshing:”

Madonna, the sluttish, egomaniacal mother-of-the-century has topped even her most revolting self.

Axe on October 17, 2006 at 9:14 PM

This woman, a pig in clothes, is an abomination to the human race. She userped the Holy Mothers name from the Catholic church, names her spawn after miracles and now wants to be a Jolie wantabe. She is dispicable, and should be arrested for kidnapping that child from his father and now states that she wants another. If she wanted such a great life for this boy she should have given the father enough money to raise him respectably in his own enviorment. She is an opportunist who has no limits. I hope she rots in hell!

NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on October 17, 2006 at 9:19 PM

I found it…inspiring.

Bryan on October 17, 2006 at 9:19 PM

Madonna: “I’m an aging whore whose shock tactics aren’t working anymore. I need to do something hot and trendy to maintain people’s attention on me. It has to be all about ME!!”

Publicist: “You could adopt a child from some stone age country, like Angela Jolie.”

Madonna: “Yeah, she’s a hot commodity right now.”

Publicist: “Or you could give birth to a baby naturally in some stone age country.”

Madonna: “Absolutely not. My uterus is all worn out from years of slutty behavior. I’ll adopt. Find me a negro child in Africa so I can get some face time on The Insider and E!”

I’m not sure which is worse, growing up in an impoverished country or being Madonna’s adopted child.

Bellicose Muse on October 17, 2006 at 9:25 PM

I’m not sure which is worse, growing up in an impoverished country or being Madonna’s adopted child.

Honestly? In this case choice B definitely seems worse to me. Especially since the boy has some family, committed Christians at that.

tiekitwist on October 17, 2006 at 9:30 PM

Reminds me of a song I heard as a child:

How much is that doggie little boy in the window?

Kini on October 17, 2006 at 9:37 PM

What a pathetic transparent plea for attention, from the world’s supreme attention whore. She’s 48, for crying out loud, too old to be the mother of a toddler. Not that she’ll be doing any of the manual labor involved in taking care of the kid.

/full disclosure: I’m 47 and patiently waiting for grandchildren.

Bad Penny on October 17, 2006 at 10:08 PM

I don’t believe Maddona has ever had her diaper changed.
She’s nothing but a rich, OLD, spoiled brat.

byteshredder on October 17, 2006 at 10:12 PM

Before the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), when an American white person bought an African, they used to call it something else.

baldilocks on October 17, 2006 at 10:12 PM

She still has the best thighs in the business.

infidel4life on October 17, 2006 at 10:15 PM

She should have adopted Michael Jackson’s kids. Someone from the same culture. Plus they wouldn’t have to wear that bag on their heads anymore.

material girl yes. No caps deserved. The ultimate consumer.

Every white liberal needs an anchor a trophy baby to tone down the whiteness

I would ask of Madonna a question I asked another recently:

Do you love the child more than the father?
Do you love the father less than the son?

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

Of all the ways one could help others with money, helping yourself on their backs isn’t one of them.

Seems to me there was a boy named Elian who had a chance for a better life, sought by his mother and originally agreed to by the father. The executive branch used a swat team to rip the kid from his relatives and send him back to the prison colony.

entagor on October 17, 2006 at 10:19 PM

Joan Crawford dies, yet to live again in Madonna. This is beyond evil. Children are mere ornaments to their Hollywood parents, anyway. She will parade him around the way Angelina does with her prized Cambodian and Sudanese cupie dolls. Beyond repulsive. I can only think of one word to describe this woman….twat.

Jewel on October 17, 2006 at 10:24 PM

What I don’t understand is who’s buying her music?

Kevin R on October 17, 2006 at 10:46 PM

entagor,

This whole situation got me to thinking about the Elian case. Back then, I was probably one of the few conservatives who thought that then-President Clinton did the right thing (for once). You are the first person that I heard say that Elian’s father had agreed to allow the mother to bring their son to America (my memory may be faulty here). But, even if that’s so, I doubt that the father counted on the mother dying in the attempt.

My take on that situation was this: after the mother’s death, the fate of the boy fell on the father and, in the wake of the sad fate of the mother, who could blame him for wanting his son back? His rights to be with his son trumped all other considerations and if Castro wasn’t going to let Mr. Gonzalez go, then Elian belonged with him.

Taking children away from their parents without the parent’s permission or under false pretenses just because they’re poor or live in under an oppressive regime may sound altruistic and compassionate on its face, but, outside of true cases of abuse, I wonder what kind of precedent such intervention could set. Think about it.

And guess what. Madonna has just set the bar a little lower. Nothing new for her.

baldilocks on October 17, 2006 at 10:46 PM

So… the father’s own private hell on earth is just beginning.

Incidentally: I wonder what Bono has to say about all this.

RD on October 17, 2006 at 10:52 PM

You are the first person that I heard say that Elian’s father had agreed to allow the mother to bring their son to America – baldilocks

I did a lot of reading when it happened. Family members said that the mother had discussed taking Elian to Florida and the father had not objected. There were even phone conversations after Elian was rescued. However, when the case became high profile the father after being counseled by his government including some contact with the Great Leader changed his story.

The story was ramped up by the American Left as a must-win to validate Castro. This is the same American Left that has stolen the rights of fatherhood from American males.

With Fidel standing behind you who is going to tell the cameras something Fidel does not want to hear?

I feel so sorry for the kid who is now a pawn for eternity to prove a point. The father is a cipher. We will never know more now, unless he grabs a boat over. His chances of busting out are zero because of the high profile of the case.

entagor on October 17, 2006 at 11:12 PM

built an entire career on going out of her way to offend Christians–but notably, not Muslims or members of any other faith

Muslims regard Jesus as one of God’s greatest prophets. They also believe that he wasn’t crucified… that he ascended into heaven while still alive. Thus, I’d imagine that an American woman mocking the gruesome (and false) death of God’s messenger of truth would be quite insulting. Maybe not as insulting as it is to Christians, who believe Jesus to be God himself, but it’d be up there.

Mark Jaquith on October 17, 2006 at 11:42 PM

entagor:

Thanks.

Perhaps the father is a cipher. However we didn’t (and don’t) have to be. Regardless of all the politics involved, I felt that parental rights trumped all of that. No one can really know the mind of that father. All we did know is that he *was* his sole living parent and no one else was–not Clinton, not Castro, not the American observing (and partisan) public and not the American relatives who wanted Elian.

baldilocks on October 17, 2006 at 11:53 PM

What time is the next SLAVE AUCTION Madge?

Soothsayer on October 18, 2006 at 12:07 AM

False, Mark? Are you making the error of saying that Christ didn’t die, or the error that he never existed?

Either way, frankly it’s really not the place to make that kind of comment on this post. This post isn’t a debate about religion per se. It’s not a debate about anything–it’s an exposition of the arrogance on display in Madonna’s purchasing a little boy.

The fact is, as a Christian, I know full well that Madonna has built her career as I stated. That’s why I stated it that way–it’s factual. She set out to insult Christians. It’s a safe and lucrative way to make a living in this country. If she wanted to insult Muslims in any particular way, there are hundreds of ways of doing so that don’t offend Christians, and she has chosen precisely none of them. Insulting Muslims, though, isn’t lucrative and obviously isn’t safe. Ask Theo Van Gogh if you need a clue on that–oh wait, you can’t.

You know all of that, if you know even the most basic facts about Madonna. If you don’t, keep your opinions to yourself.

Bryan on October 18, 2006 at 12:11 AM

I simply do not understand why Madge does not, if she truly cares for the boy, act as his benefactor and support the boy and his father. The boy HAS a father and the only reason he cannot support HIS son is due to a lack of money.

This is a outrage however in the world of liberal double standards and shear boobery it all makes sense and WE are wrong.

x95b10 on October 18, 2006 at 12:27 AM

Doncha know? It’s the latest lifestyle accessory – an underprivileged youngster from a third-world nation. All the best people are doing it (Heck, Angelina has two adopted kids – I guess to give her more options when choosing her outfit)

RustMouse on October 18, 2006 at 1:27 AM

False, Mark? Are you making the error of saying that Christ didn’t die, or the error that he never existed?

Of course not. I’m a Christian. I was just observing that in light of the Muslim view on Jesus, Madonna’s actions are likely also offensive to Muslims. You stated that her vulgar offenses “notably” excluded Muslims. I was merely correcting this.

Mark Jaquith on October 18, 2006 at 1:33 AM

They don’t call her a material girl for nothing.

hadsil on October 18, 2006 at 1:38 AM

I was just observing that in light of the Muslim view on Jesus, Madonna’s actions are likely also offensive to Muslims.

Mark Jaquith on October 18, 2006 at 1:33 AM

That is not the case Mark. Muslims sneer and mock at the notion of the virgin birth and Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection. They might have respect for their false Islamic concept of Jesus but they have no respect for Christianity. Disrespect for the Christian concept of Christ does not offend them at all, in fact they embrace it.

infidel4life on October 18, 2006 at 1:46 AM

I was just observing that in light of the Muslim view on Jesus, Madonna’s actions are likely also offensive to Muslims.

I’d say that is a reasonable expectation, given Islam’s teachings on Jesus. But the Islamic world’s (general) perception of Christianity seems less flattering. I’ve never seen a single embassy burned down in my lifetime by angry Muslims furious that Jesus was mocked, and he’s been mocked all my life. So:

They might have respect for their false Islamic concept of Jesus but they have no respect for Christianity. Disrespect for the Christian concept of Christ does not offend them at all, in fact they embrace it.

And since Madonna’s chosen her career path:

She set out to insult Christians. It’s a safe and lucrative way to make a living in this country.

i.e. Giving Christians in general the finger, and the Catholic Church in particular Two Fingers Up, they are effectively on the same team.

Bonus: She hangs from a Cross in spandex and pleather, humps the air, sings about sin, and personifies everything they hate about the decadent West. Snap her picture, and get her on the cover of Jihad Weekly! (They read it for the articles.)

With Madonna, we all win!

Axe on October 18, 2006 at 4:41 AM

(The fact that she is one of the first against the wall is just more of that Irony thing we’re all getting used to.)

Axe on October 18, 2006 at 4:44 AM

“The enemy of my enemy is … next.”

:) Sorry, I’ll shut up now.

Axe on October 18, 2006 at 4:58 AM

Even her stage name was designed to offend Christians. I think she bought an English accent as well.

Hening on October 18, 2006 at 8:23 AM

Doncha know? It’s the latest lifestyle accessory – an underprivileged youngster from a third-world nation. All the best people are doing it (Heck, Angelina has two adopted kids – I guess to give her more options when choosing her outfit)

So what happens when having a underprivleded youngster becomes old? Will she throw the kid out with the rest of yesterdays fashions and get a new ‘wardrobe’?

Hell they often do it with their spouses. Commitment? Whats that?

CrazyFool on October 18, 2006 at 9:05 AM

SICK!

Now she wants a girl too. To complete her matching set. Looks like she went window shopping. No news if the girl has parents or not (not that the material girl would care…).

From: Mirror.co.uk (via Drudge):

MADONNA: NOW I WANT A GIRL
Madonna’s vow as she speaks of her joy at baby David
By Martin Fricker

MADONNA wants to adopt a three-year-old girl from the same African village as her new son.

The singer revealed her amazing plan as she spoke for the first time of her and husband Guy Ritchie’s joy at adopting 13-month-old David Banda. The tot arrived at her London home yesterday in the arms of a nanny.

Madonna, 48, told relatives: “I saw this girl with the saddest smile. I told Guy ‘We must give this child a home too’.” Jubilant at David’s arrival, she said: “It was my wish to help one child escape an extreme life of hardship.”

How much is the baby in the window!
The one with the saddest smile.
How much is the girl in the window…

CrazyFool on October 18, 2006 at 9:31 AM

Who The F Cares? You folks bashing Madonna on this topic have got to be kidding! Shame on you! Another stupidity frenzy based on celebrity…

Cracking jokes about it is one thing but some of you sound down right dhimmicratic with in your venom.

GoingThere on October 18, 2006 at 9:51 AM

Even her stage name was designed to offend Christians. I think she bought an English accent as well.

Hening on October 18, 2006 at 8:23 AM

Believe it or not, but Madonna is actually her birth name. Her parents named her that.

StephC on October 18, 2006 at 10:46 AM

… which once again proves my theory: Madonna’s a whore.

Sincerely,

Norm MacDonald

thirteen28 on October 18, 2006 at 10:55 AM

Treat(s) the kid like a pair of shoes.

I think once she’s bored with him, she’ll have him turned into a handbag.

dougless on October 18, 2006 at 11:20 AM

Although I do like a few of her songs, this spoiled, opportunistic, attention-slut has gone over/under a new line. First, people “put up” with her on/off stage antics. Now it looks like a whole new round of “putting up” with.

Everyone watches the Loony Hollywood Leftists to see and shout outrage over their misdeeds. It helps keep us in focus and remind a few uncertain of what is unnecessary and disrespectful.

tormod on October 18, 2006 at 12:09 PM

Well, if it’s a little African baby she wants there are plenty here in America in need of good homes. I have some friends she’s black & he’s white and they are having a tough time getting a little black child because the social worker doesnt like their mixed race. She said this weekend that maybe they ought to go to Africa themselves for the latest fashion accesory (sp?, it’s early out here)

Catie96706 on October 18, 2006 at 12:36 PM

I feel sorry for the two children she has. “Mommy wasn’t happy with you anymore so….I went and bought replacements!” What a witch.

moonsbreath on October 18, 2006 at 12:46 PM

Maybe not as insulting as it is to Christians, who believe Jesus to be God himself, but it’d be up there.

Mark Jaquith on October 17, 2006 at 11:42 PM

Just need to point out a little fact to a ‘fellow christian’… Most Christians regard Jesus as the son of God, not God himself. As a Catholic, I was taught that we refer to the Holy Trinity as “The Father (God), the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit”.

And do I find Madonna’s antics insulting? What she does on stage, or in her music and videos doesn’t matter to me. My faith is not subject to her validating it. I believe what I believe for my own reasons. So, I think finding offense with her anti-christian behavior is a waste of time. As for her taking a child from a country while that childs father is still in the picture is simply criminal. Just my own 2 cents.

DakRoland on October 18, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Got some bad theology there, DakRoland, which is one reason I objected to Mark’s initial comment–the theology isn’t the point, nor is what does or doesn’t offend Muslims the point. Our very existence offends some Muslims, and they’re not even related to the subject of this post. That’s all a distraction to the point of the post.

But anyway, Jesus said “He who has seen me has seen the Father” and several similar statements identifying himself as the Son of God and God Himself. That’s what most Christians actually believe.

Bryan on October 18, 2006 at 2:22 PM

Baldilocks just put the puck through the 5 hole (that’s a hockey term, get your mind outta the gutter!) A white American picking Africans out of a line-up to be shipped to the U.S. is bordering on slavery. Not that they’ll be picking cotton or anything, but as others have mentioned above, I hope she doesn’t drop the kids along with her little Hollywood trend when it’s over.

Tony737 on October 18, 2006 at 4:27 PM

This is HUMAN TRAFFICKING!!! There is no clearer picture than this. When any person(s) has to buy their way past/through/over/under laws in order to obtain a child from another person/welfare organization it is human trafficking Here is the UN defenition:

What is “trafficking in persons”?

“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime

Grrrrrrrrrrrr…

toofa on October 18, 2006 at 7:09 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.