The Boortz Report: Mass shootings and racial statistics

Today, this is a sad Boortz Report, but one that must be told.

The left would have you believe that mass shootings are perpetrated by white men and that it’s evidence of “racism” in this country.

Is that true?

Boortz dives into the grim numbers to show that what the media is saying doesn’t reflect the actual statistics behind mass shooting events.

The Boortz Report: Race relations – bigotry, prejudice and racism

Stacey Abrams (L) and David Perdue (R). Photos: AP News

Time for Boortz to break out his Funk & Wagnall!

Following the GA primary elections, a NY Times “journalist” wrote an article about David Perdue making what he referred to as a “racist statement” about Stacey Abrams.

On closer examination, not only is this allegation false, the word “racism” is misused!

Today the Talkmaster addresses one of his largest problems when nit comes to the misuse of the words “Racism”, “Prejudice” and “”Bigotry” and shows why using these terms interchangeably is not a good plan for effective communication.

The US Women’s National Soccer Team achieved “pay equality” by stealing money from the Men’s Team

FILE – United States’ Megan Rapinoe, center, holds the trophy as she celebrates with teammates after they defeated the Netherlands 2-0 in the Women’s World Cup final soccer match at the Stade de Lyon in Decines, outside Lyon, France, Sunday, July 7, 2019. (AP Photo/Francisco Seco)

By Bryce Maxim
In a move that feminists are hailing as a “new era in equal pay,” the US Women’s National Soccer Team will now be awarded the same prize money as as their male counterparts in World Cup Tournaments. From now through at least 2028, future World Cup Tournament appearance winnings will be the same for men and women playing for the United States.

How was this parity achieved? After all, this has been a problem that has been allowed to perpetuate for years! What economic change facilitated this step forward in equal pay? No. Did their player’s union negotiate a better television deal? No. Did they work out a larger compensation deal with FIFA, the governing body for World Cup Soccer? Again, no.

The answer was simple. They resorted to theft by picking the pockets of the male US World Cup soccer players.

The deal they cut with the union representing the men’s team basically takes from the larger payouts the men’s team earnes in the World Cup Tournament and pools it with the women’s lesser World Cup payouts. It is then distributed evenly among the players.

“Why shouldn’t the women get more money”, say the advocates for equal pay, “after all they won the World Cup 4 times and the men have yet to win once.”

Sorry. It’s not that simple.

FIFA determines the total amount of pool money available to win in both the Men’s and Women’s tournaments. This is based on audience size, the amount of revenue that can be generated from game sponsorships, and tv broadcast rights. As the men’s teams win and progress, they earn a larger share of the total prize money with a championship delivering the men’s team a payout of $42 million for them to split. Conversely, the women’s tournament has a $3 million payout for the champions because the audience for their games is significantly less.

Since revenue for these tournaments is based upon audience size and the number of people an advertiser can place ads in front of, how do the world audiences for men’s and women’s soccer compare? Let’s go to FIFA’s data.

– The total reach for the 2018 Men’s World Cup tournament in Russia was 3.2 billion people and for the 2019 Women’s World Cup, it was 1.12 billion, just 1/3 of the men’s total audience.

– The men’s final game brought in an audience of 1.12 billion people which is equal to the audience of the ENTIRE women’s tournament. By the way, the women’s final had a live audience of 82.18 million.

– The average men’s match brought in about 516 million viewers compared to the women’s average of 263.62 million.

– Total viewing hours for the Men’s World Cup: 34.7 billion. For the Women’s World cup: 2.49 billion.

By every viewer metric, the men’s World Cup tournament is dominating the women’s by massive amounts. For this reason, the total award money available to the men is going to be far higher. Bigger audiences draw exponentially more advertising and sponsorship money. It’s abundantly clear that FIFA’s viewer data shows the men’s tournament to be the more valuable of the two events resulting in a richer pot for teams to draw from.

“But the US Women’s team won the World Cup 4 times”, their advocates proclaim, “They deserve to get more money!”

I won’t argue that point. They probably should be paid more because success should be rewarded. However that’s an issue that should be taken up with FIFA instead of penalizing US Men’s soccer players by seizing a portion of their money simply because they play in a more lucrative league.

US female soccer players can believe they are “victims” of an “oppressive system” that’s denies them the equal pay for equal work all they want, but it still doesn’t entitle them to seize a dime from their male counterparts!

And what about that “equal pay for equal work” argument being used as the justification for this theft?

It’s true that both men’s and women’s teams are playing soccer, both are composed of people equally dedicated to their sport, and both teams feature highly skilled players.

However, they’re not playing the same game.

The men’s game is faster, more physically demanding and requires a higher skill level to play than the women’s game.

That could be perceived as a “ridiculous and sexist statement” were it not for a pair of games played in 2017 by the US and Australian women’s teams.

That year, the US World Cup soccer team played a “tune up scrimmage” against an under 15 boys club in preparation for a match against the Russian women’s national team. They lost to the boys 5-2.

That same year, the World #5 Ranked Australian Women’s National Soccer team lost a similar match 7-0 to one composed of 15 year old boys.

In both contests, the women were outplayed, out scored and out matched by teenage opponents. Granted these boys teams were composed of “elite” players, but they were STILL high school sophomores and were still more than the women’s teams could handle.

But if these women still believe their skill set deserves prize money equal to that in the men’s tournament, then they should play for the men’s World Cup soccer team. Play soccer at that level and you too will get the money. As a matter of fact, if a woman ever did become a member of the US Men’s World cup team, she’d instantly become the highest paid player in the sport! Before she kicked ball one in a tournament, endorsement deals would generate that woman tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars!

Not possible, you say? Women cannot compete directly with men in sports because men are just physically stronger?

IndyCar / NASCAR racer Danica Patrick might say otherwise.

In her racing career she amassed a net worth of about 80 million dollars through race earnings and endorsements. Not once did she ever receive a race payout less than her male counterparts.


Because Danica did the same job, at the same skill level, under the same track conditions, with the same cars, and under the same rules. For this, she earned the same amount of money as her male counterparts.

That’s what equal work for equal pay looks like.

In the long run, this income redistribution scheme will backfire. American, male soccer players with the highest skill sets will not work their asses off just so some random woman can seize a huge chunk of his paycheck like it is some “soccer baby mama” alimony payment! Those athletes will play for another country’s team that gives them 100% of their earnings or they’ll completely pass on participating.

The ones that do submit to the seizure of their earnings will be second tier in their abilities at best. Thankfully this will result in quicker tournament departures for the US Men’s Soccer Team and less income for the women to steal.

When the tournaments are done, the cheers have all subsided and the US Men’s Team money has been redistributed to the leeches on the US Women’s Team, a delicious, irony will remain.

Delusional, dopey, woke US female soccer players who think that seizing the men’s income is a step forward for female athletes, equity pay, and financial empowerment are mistaken. Theirs is not a show of the strength of women in soccer.

It’s proof of their total dependence on men for their financial security.

“Sugar Daddy Soccer” anyone?

The Boortz Report: Dealing with violent protestors


Protestors in the United States are getting bolder and more violent. The Talkmaster looks at their tactics and then comes up with a suggestion of his own on how to deal with these lunatics.

Kevin Walling: Why Biden’s Approval Rating Among Hispanic Americans Is A Major Problem For Democrats

Kevin Walling (Photo: Fox News)

Democratic campaign strategist Kevin Walling joins Fox Across America to discuss a new poll from Quinnipiac University which finds President Biden’s approval rating among Hispanic Americans has dropped to 26 percent.

“We get into a lot of trouble as Democrats by only going to the Hispanic community, Latino community a month out from the election saying we need to support, si, se puede, come to our side, when this has to be an ongoing conversation. We need to talk about small business issues because so many small businesses are started by Black and Brown folks in this country. We need to talk about inflation and how it’s hurting, especially lower income folks on the playing field, that over-index for Black and Brown communities. So I think it’s a huge issue now, less than six months out from the election. And Hispanics will make the difference in a number of key districts in Florida, in California, other pickup opportunities for Democrats. It’s a huge issue.”

Relax pro-abortion protestors, your uteruses are safe

Abortion rights demonstrators rally, Saturday, May 14, 2022, on the National Mall in Washington. Abortophiles are rallying from coast to coast in the face of an anticipated Supreme Court decision that could overturn women’s right to an abortion. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades)

By Bryce Maxim
XTRA 106.3FM, ATLANTA – Across the nation women are protesting the Supreme Court’s future overturning of Roe vs. Wade. They mistakenly believe the elimination of this federal “one size fits all” abortion law would result in total elimination of abortion everywhere in America.

That’s not going to happen. At the very least, it will remain an option for women to save their lives if a pregnancy goes wrong and for victims of rape or incest. I cannot imagine a single state that would not make provisions for abortions under these circumstances in future legislation. That would not be rational or merciful. It would be evil.

Truth be told, numerous states have already written access to abortion into their state law. They guarantee that there will ALWAYS be a place in the US where a woman can get an abortion if she chooses. It may be less convenient, but it will still be available.

So relax abortophiles, pour yourselves a glass of wine, quit burning your bras, and take off your dreadfully cliché “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes. Your uterus is safe. You will still have the ability to get your precious abortions and the freedom to choose what you do with your body.

After all, abortion is a woman’s choice and it’s a serious one. There’s no question about that and I agree with the protestors in that regard.

But what about the series of important choices women make that lead to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place? Those should be examined as well.

It starts with the fact that every woman can choose to keep her clothes on. After all, nobody ever got pregnant through a pair of Levi’s. But once a woman makes the choice to remove her clothing, that concept of contraception disappears.

The woman’s next choice concerns the numerous birth control options available to her in 2022. Birth control pills, long term contraceptives like Norplant, IUDs, and condoms are all easily obtained, inexpensive, and do a good job of keeping female bodies fetus-free! Just choose the one that works best for you, follow the enclosed instructions, and get your freak on.

Unless THAT choice is not made.

So moving on, the next option women could choose to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is taking the “morning after pill”. Just pop one to prevent a full term pregnancy even if fertilization occurs. No harm no foul. World keeps turning and pregnancy terminated.

However, when a woman doesn’t choose the morning after pill, she moves on to the choice about whether or not to get an abortion.

But how much time does the average woman need to make that decision? 4 weeks? 8 weeks? 15 weeks? More than that? Surely the average woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy within a 4 month-long time frame when the fetus is not viable outside the womb. No?

By my count, that’s six opportunities for women to exercise some form of their right to choose through birth control or early-term abortion. So what’s left?

Choice #7: “Late term abortion”.

This is what the protestors are really fighting for. They want the ability to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of the child’s birth.

What a pathetic abdication of responsibility! After passing on the choices of celibacy, contraception and an early trimester abortion, these women are most passionate to defend the choice that enables them to destroy a child on the cusp of birth!

Make no mistake, these protests are not about a woman’s right to choose, nor are they about their opposition to “government taking control of women’s bodies”.

They’re a nationwide temper tantrum thrown by selfish women who resent the idea that a state can set restrictions or time limits on irresponsible behavior that resulting in the needless death of a child.

Note: This article was not written by a fascist, privileged white man. Bryce Maxim is a poly-pantransmorphic plastisexual who identified as a Cuban, female, taxi driver from Bangor, Maine while composing this article.

Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) Touts ‘160%’ Increase In Early Voting Despite Democrat Hysteria Over GA Voting Bill

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (Photo: Fox News)

May 5, 2022
Governor Brian Kemp, Georgia’s 83rd Governor joined the Guy Benson Show to tout a huge increase in early voting numbers in Georgia’s upcoming primary, despite democrat claims that Georgia’s newly passed voting bill would make it harder for Georgians to vote.

Governor Kemp touted his state’s huge increase in early voting by saying, “It’s incredible. We’ve seen like a 160% increase in early voting between 2020 and 2022. So people are excited in Georgia. They’re turning out. They’re obviously not being restrictive. We were actually talking about that today when President Biden was criticizing our state and using that famous line. Jim Crow 2.0 on steroids really just mirrored what Stacey Abrams was selling. And that’s where she is. She’s profited off of all of this and none of it was true.”