Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Andrea Tantaros — host of Fox News’ The Five — claimed on Wednesday that Americans are less free because they don’t know their history. Then she helpfully gave a perfect example of how Americans don’t know their history.

“If you ask most people, they don’t even know why we left England,” she said. “They don’t even know why some guy in Boston got his head blown off because he tried to secretly raise the tax on tea. Most people don’t know that.”

She went on to say that this has led to lawmakers “doing whatever they want, nobody checks them, there’s no responsibility. If we don’t know why we got here, if we don’t know why we fought and died, how are we going to fight for it?”

“Yeah, it’s a good point,” her co-host Greg Gutfeld said.

“Early-American history experts were generally puzzled over what Tantaros was talking about…” PolitiFact said in its attempt to fact check Tantaros’ statement.

Author Chris Mooney found seven studies that confirm Fox News viewers as consistently the most misinformed of any news channel. It seems they’re nearly as misinformed as the channel’s hosts.

A side note: Every country listed ahead of the United States in Heritage’s “Economic Freedom Index” has universal health care and lower health care costs, because every industrialized country in the world has universal health care and lower health care costs.

Thanks, Media Matters, for tracking down this video!

Tantaros The Five

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • eps62

    More FOX misinformation idiots

  • Mama62

    This is too funny, she chastises Americans for not knowing their history, which I also believe is true -especially if you listen to right wing crappola much and then she just does what they do best at Fox, “she makes stuff up”. I also love the study they are discussing that ranks Canada as more economically free than the US. Hmmm, I thought our good neighbors to the North were all socialist, according to the conservatives in this country. So which is it? This dingy woman made the references to the socialist and communist, as if they were one in the same. Someone really does need a good history lesson with a little political science thrown in for good measure.

    • Mama62

      Seems you can have universal health care and still be economically free…surprised the Heritage foundation published this study since all the “free countries have universal healthcare.

      • bhaggen

        I’m from Switzerland, #4 on the list, which has standard healthcare reasonably priced. Contraception, maternity, are optional AND since they are under Napoleonic Law instead of British & American case law there are no lawsuits which play a big hand in the U.S.’s escalating healthcare costs. We also strictly control our borders, have a National referendum, have a huge surplus, keep our SIG 550s in our pantry but no handguns & have very little crime. Literally by the people, for the people. Pitiful Americans.

        • Mama62

          I appreciate your reply however, Switzerland is the size of one of our states so applying your public referendum won’t work in the US. Our constitution was written to give certain government functions to the Federal branch and all others to the states. That creates a constant battle between these 2 branches of our government. Our political system has been corrupted by power seeking billionaires and corporations who put the almighty dollar before before all else. The people have no voice, or very little and its getting harder and harder to be heard. Those who are seeking the power do a very good job of brain washing the populace. They control all the money so they must be right? The gun advocates publish photos of your citizens riding bikes about town with your SIG 550’s strapped to them to distort your actual reality. The US is awash in handguns both legal and illegal and the powerful NRA and the gun manufacturers make sure that does not change. The concept of making pregnancy coverage and birth control optional is a good one on the surface but when you are trying to standardize an insurance program, it’s a bit more complicated. What else I wonder should be optional? Our borders would be better covered if our Congress would appropriate the required money to do so. Your borders a very small compared to ours. We had a surplus also, before George W. Bush and his penchant for war. I am afraid here in the US we have lost our ability to govern by the people for the people until we find the courage to change the political system here.

    • TZToronto

      Us freezy folks up in the Great White North may be more economically free than our southern neighbours (I spelled it like a Canadian), but the U.S. is doing its best to make sure that Americans living in Canada get subjected to its extra-territorial edicts (trying to make us ex-pats a little less economically free). They’re forcing Canadian banking institutions to report the nationality of their customers to the IRS so that the IRS can sniff out all of us tax cheats who are stashing our money in tax havens . . . like Canada. How can they do this? Well, any non-cooperating Canadian bank doing business in the U.S. will have a 30% withholding tax placed on every transaction occurring in–or passing through–that U.S. office of the Canadian bank. (Revealing the nationality of customers is in violation of Canadian privacy laws, by the way.) Oh, and don’t forget the upcoming Buy-American law now passing through Congress. That excludes Canadian firms wanting to bid on U.S. business. So much for free trade on the 20th anniversary of NAFTA. So economically free? In Canada, yes. In relation to the U.S., not so much.

      • Mama62

        Just curious, is your income from US sources or do you work in Canada? If you derive income from the US or own a US based business, I believe you should pay your US tax. If you live and work in Canada it should not be their business because you must pay taxes in Canada. If you are living on tax deferred funds (410K, IRA, etc.) then you should pay the US tax that would be due as you withdraw those funds if those investments were made while you were in the US. I know for an American living in Canada the tax filing situation gets complicated. I have family there, but they have filed for permanent residency so I believe things are getting less complicated for them the longer they are there. It should not be about nationality, it should be about the income source. What if you are Canadian and you lived in the US for 30 years, invested in tax deferred funds then went back to Canada to retire? Shouldn’t you still pay back those tax deferments? Not judging, just asking. Does Canada still have what was called the Canada pension? Again, juist curious.

        • TZToronto

          Gotta file a U.S tax return every year, but the first $85K (probably more now) of earned income is exempted from U.S. tax. After that, you can claim foreign tax credit for income taxes paid in another country, like Canada. So I’ve lived in Canada for years, but I haven’t paid any U.S. income tax. Of course, I still have to report my financial accounts held outside of the U.S. to the IRS. The problem with tax-deferred retirement plans in Canada (i.e., a Registered Retirement Savings Plan) is that they’re considered trusts in the U.S., even though they are very similar to IRAs. Canada, I believe, is negotiating with the U.S. to allow U.S. citizens living in Canada to have their RRSPs treated the same as IRAs. Canadians living outside of Canada do not have to pay taxes in Canada on income earned outside of Canada. Canada has the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), which pays a retirement benefit, much the same as Social Security, but there is also the Old Age Security (OAS) benefit which is on top of CPP. As for tax-deferred funds, I don’t know. I’ve never had that problem. My guess is that if you move back to Canada and received an annuity from another country, you have to include that as income when you file your income tax return in Canada. CPP and are considered taxable income in Canada.

          • Mama62

            Thanks for the information. It would seem right that you should not have to pay income tax on money you earn outside the US as long as you are not earning that money from a US source. As happens if you are Canadian. I’m guessing that in order to not be required to file with the US, you would have to give up your citizenship. Perhaps if everyone who earns income in the US, would keep that money in the US or report it and pay the proper tax on it, the US wouldn’t have to go looking for it in Canada and other places. A lot of it ends up in places that are not so cooperative with the US IRS. It really isn’t fair that if I earn $100,000.00 in the US and have to pay taxes on it, that someone who earns a million can just hide most of it in an offshore account somewhere and avoid paying the tax. When that happens those of us earning less must make up the difference for what is being sheltered. It is good to know that in spite of being labeled a socialist country by our friends on the right, Canada made the top 6 in economic freedom. Its looking better all the time. Economic freedom and universal health care, imagine that.

    • TZToronto

      Of course, the main point here is this: Who’s the guy in Boston who got his head blown off for that secret tax on tea? And the tax on tea, in any case, is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of why the colonies rebelled.

      • Shadow Diver

        Uh dude there was not tax on tea. The crown had given tax free status, a definite unfair advantage, to one tea company over the other. Much like todays congress.

        • TZToronto

          Whatever. Some guys dressed like native people tossed a bunch of leaves into the harbor.

        • Joyce

          Wrong. The British wanted the colonists to pay a tax on tea and they said no because it would be “taxation without representation”. Get your facts right

          • edwardw69

            Wrong. That tea had virtually no tax on it at all. The price undercut that of the tea being brought in by Dutch smugglers.

          • Sand_Cat

            The Stamp Act and similar taxes were what triggered the argument you mention, so please check your facts before advising others to do so.

          • Shadow Diver

            That is right dmfk. The Americans had to pay a tax, BUT not the other company. Use google fkhd.

      • Mama62

        This person only lives in her imagination. This is gibberish. The throwing of the tea in the harbor was to protest an unfair advantage of one company importing tea with no tax over the others who would still be subject to the tax. Had nothing whatsoever to do with someone’s head getting blown off. Yes, there were many other reasons for rebellion.

      • Sand_Cat

        The Tea Party – the real one – was triggered by Britain’s LOWERING the tax on tea, making legally imported tea cheaper than that sold by smugglers.

        Not disagreeing with you; your comment just made me think of it.

    • bhaggen

      Yea but she’s hot. Let’s give her a pass.

  • jWd

    Another Dumb ass Fox news person. No experience required I’m assuming.

    Author Chris Mooney found seven studies that confirm Fox News viewers as consistently the most misinformed of any news channel. It seems they’re nearly as misinformed as the channel’s hosts”. LOL!

    • plc97477

      One study showed that faux watchers are even less knowledgeable than people who watch no news nor read papers.

  • paganheart

    These Fox bimbos — I’m sorry, they don’t deserve to be called “anchors” or even “hosts” — make me think of a sports bar I waited tables at for several moths after I graduated from college. It was a family-owned joint, and while I was there, the owner decided to retire and turn it over to his son to run. The son insisted on being part of all employee interviews, and soon after, we noticed that the employees he hired were disproportionately female, young, very attractive, and dressed in ways that were clearly intended to show off their “assets.” Unfortunately many of these girls were also completely unqualified for the jobs they were hired to do, and some were just outright dumber than a bag of hammers. Quality and morale went down, customer complaints went up, and before long a few of us decided to abandon the ship before it sank. Sure enough, a few months later the bar shut down.

    It became a running joke around the place before I left that the only qualifications the son considered before hiring someone, was how short her skirt was and how good she looked in it. Methinks Fox much judge its female anchors by a similar standard. Too bad they are unlikely to meet a similar fate.

    • Allan Richardson

      It keeps dirty old white men watching. I myself am a dirty old white man, but not a stupid one. Two seconds with the sound off is enough of those “Fox-y” women for me. But it is a shame that many of these women probably HAVE the intelligence to work somewhere else, but at Fox they are not allowed to use it. Playing dumb or being dumb, they don’t care, as long as the audience takes it all in without thinking.

      Which reminds me of a cartoon I saw once in a magazine. The caption read “Studies show that the larger a woman’s breasts, the lower the intelligence … OF THE MEN AROUND HER.”

      • Leftout

        That’s is why I watch CNN and MSNBC, women have smaller breasts and I feel more intelligent as well. Alex Wagner is Hot, makes a tingle go up my leg, like Chris Matthews and Obama. I like Alex …female … the way …..for breast watchers.

        • plc97477

          She has a great smile also.

          • Leftout

            You are going to give male hood a bad name, you must keep up the expected male image ……of breast watching, not smiles. Small breasts are the in thing and that’s sayin a mouthful at that.

          • plc97477

            Sorry I am a little behind. Can’t keep up with trends very well.

          • Leftout

            Hmmm. A “little behind” goes well with small breasts as well, thanks for the correction of my oversight.

  • adp3d

    Yeah, and Paul Revere and his famous ride to warn Americans that the British were coming to take their guns…that’s why I can’t watch Fox, sooo much B*llSh*t…

    • Jimmy Agler

      I wonder if she knows that Paul Revere rode 17 miles, while a different guy by the name of Isreal Bissel rode from boston to Philly?

      • Jim

        Don’t forget William Dawes who rode south from Boston. Paul Revere had a better press agent.

        • Jimmy Agler

          Actually none of them were famous for their rides for about 70 years or so. Revere became the “hero” of these men because of Washington Irving’s poem “The midnight Ride of Paul Revere”.

          • Jim

            Longfellow instead of Irving and that’s what I meant by better press agent (so he alone is remembered by history).

          • Jimmy Agler

            you’re right it was Longfellow,,,ty for that. My American lit professor would be disappointed in me,,,lol

  • FT66

    This woman Andrea Tantaros is totally clueless. She doesn’t even know what she was talking about. She better talk about her grassroot(Greece) where her parents came from. They might find her advice may be useful.

  • stcroixcarp

    This girl on Fox news probably went to a charter school and got a degree from an online “University”. Don’t blame her!

  • brucegarner

    I hope this twit wasn’t educated in a public school system! So much wrong with what she says that it’s hard to decipher which is worse. Then some of the comments posted here also indicate a level of ignorance about our history that is appalling. Our Revolutionary War was essentially fought over all the ways that the colonies were being taxed while having no representation in the British Parliament. Equating our own representative government with what Britain did to us is ludicrous. We DO have representation. The fact that we allow it to be bought and sold to the highest bidder/contributor is our fault. Over half of those in Congress are millionaires. What makes us think they relate to the everyday person they represent? Then again, with “reporters” as ignorant as this one, I doubt we can expect any better.

    • Leftout

      Our representation is through the PAC corrupted congress. Ther is no representation of the middle class that supports the one Percenters and the remaining lower rung non tax payers, so Andrea has a correct analogy. Also none pf these “opinion” programs on Fox, MSNBC, . are true news programs. The only true news programs used to be on CNN, , a format that made them famous, and they should go back into that format. There is more enlightened information on this forum.

  • Leftout

    The pilgrims and earlier settlers left England for better opportunities , religious freedoms from reformations, and to avoid onerous , onerous, taxes by King Charles, which stifled the economy and left Englands economy in poor, shape, as in post NAFTA. When 1773 Tea Party patriots saw thw Same types of taxation being imposed on tea, they rebelled. One of the the tea merchants almost got his head blown off literally but he acquiesced to the returning of the tea to England, the tea was instead thrown into Boston Bay. Andrea is correct.

    • Independent1

      Not quite. It wasn’t the Boston Tea Party that set off the war, it was actions of General Gage almost 2 years after the tea was tossed into Boston Harbor (and causes of the war were far more complex than one man being killed). See these excerpts from a recap of what caused the Revolutionary War:

      In Boston, royal authority was asserted with the arrival of Lieutenant General Thomas Gage as the new royal governor on April 2, 1774. Initially well received as most Bostonians were pleased to see the hated Governor Thomas Hutchinson depart, Gage did not move to quash the Sons of Liberty for fear of escalating the situation.

      As a result of the Congress, which ended October 26, the colonies agreed to the formation of the Continental Association. This compact stipulated that the colonies would boycott all British goods starting on December 1, 1774, and would boycott the West Indies unless the islands agreed to cease importing British goods as well. As a result, importation of British goods dropped 97% in 1775. In addition, if the Intolerable Acts were not repealed, the colonies would cease exporting to Britain effective September 10, 1775. Departing Philadelphia, the group decided to return in May 1775, for a Second Continental Congress.

      In the spring of 1775, Gage began a series of raids with the goal of disarming the colonial militias. On the evening of April 18, Gage ordered some of his troops to march to Concord to seize munitions and gunpowder. The next morning, British troops encountered colonial militia in the village of Lexington. While the two forces faced off, a shot rang out. Though the source of the shot is unknown, it touched off eight years of war.

      • Leftout

        Thanks for filling some interesting history in my knowledge base gap for this period. You mentioned Thomas Hutchinson, who was against the tea from being returned to England before Samuel Adams et. al. Decided to dunk it into Boston Bay.i thought surely he must have been the one who was figuratively going to be shot . The tea tax actually was decreased as you know, however this token new measure was also supposed to win the minds of tea consumers in America by driving down the market price of tea. But this trivial token Tax situation was already aggrevated by the previous heavy-handed tax measures, this obviously was overlooked by the population and the new law was regarded at “Taxation without representation. …and for me this was the primordial start of the revolution against the British.

        • Independent1

          Sounds right to me. And if any posters want to really get a feel for it, the causes of the American Revolution really started to take shape with the French and Indian War. See this:

          1754-1763 – French and Indian War
          This war between Britain and France ended with the victorious British deeply in debt and demanding more revenue from the colonies. With the defeat of the French, the colonies became less dependent on Britain for protection.

          The British really started dumping on the colonies.

          Here’s a good rehash of that this link (Causes of the American Revolution):

    • Jim

      When 120 Pilgrims showed up in Plymouth in 1620 seeking religious liberty there were already some 6000 people down in Virginia trying to strike it rich.

      • Leftout

        They were striking at rich or “scratching” it out to make a self reliant living away from oppressive oversights as experienced in their former homelands. These early settlers were no so wealth as to be vacationing at Hilton Head from day one. It took a few years of bartering and capitalism for them to become aristocratic and journalists.

        • Jim

          the key word was “trying” to strike it rich. Most were not successful. The motivation for most of the early settlers was economic rather than spiritual.

  • 788eddie

    I remember a ditz like Andrea when I was back in high school. She’d diligently write notes during class, and raise her hand and ask a question that would have everybody rolling their eyes in disbelief.

    I guess that type is still around. We should be gentle with them, out of kindness.

  • Annemb

    The first sensible thing I’ve heard come from Fox News! However, they, too, deliver falsehoods which they call “truth”, and then get angry when their opinions are countered.

  • Jay Louis

    Why aren’t more people commenting on her fictional notion that America was founded by Patriots killing Americans who attempted to impose taxes, a dog whistle to the gun nuts on the right who want to kill Democrats for attempting to raise taxes?

  • MrBruceCampbell

    “The Five” is a fascinating show. It’s as if their mandate is to be stupider than the Fox and Friends lineup.

    • plc97477

      sounds like they are doing a bang up job.

  • Jimmy Agler

    I think she is trying to reference a man named Crispus Attucks who is considered the first casualty of the American Revolution. However he wasn’t involved in the Boston Tea Party, he was killed in Boston so I suppose fox will say we owe her partial credit.

    • Independent1

      Actually there were five killed in that initial skirmish. Note that it was John Adams who defended the soldiers who killed the five Americans getting them acquitted for murder but two ended up being convicted of manslaughter. The cause of the Revolutionary war is far more complex than what happened at the Boston Tea Party.
      See this excerpt of what took place over almost 15 years leading up to the Tea Party:

      Over the next three years, boycotts and protests continued in the colonies. These came to a head on the night of March 5, 1770, when angry colonists began throwing snowballs and rocks at British troops guarding the Customs House in Boston. In the commotion, British troops opened fire on the mob, killing three immediately. Two more colonists died a short time later from their wounds. The soldiers involved were indicted for murder and their trial scheduled for that fall. Defended by John Adams, the accused were acquitted of murder, though two were convicted of manslaughter. With tensions in the colonies reaching a breaking point, Parliament repealed most aspects of the Townshend Acts in April 1770, but left a tax on tea.

    • Independent1

      The history is a bit confusing here. Although the Boston Masscare occured in 1770, and five were killed, it really wasn’t the beginning of the war which really didn’t happen for another almost 5 years, although there was quite a bit of unrest during those years. Which is why when Tantarus says we don’t understand our nations beginning and then gives a grossly oversimplistic explanation, it does nothing but highlight just how distorted and misleading Fox News is.

      But here’s what you were referring to:

      Crispus Attucks (c. 1723 – March 5, 1770) was an American slave, merchant seaman and dockworker of Wampanoag and African descent. He was the first casualty of the Boston Massacre, in Boston, Massachusetts,[2] and is widely considered to be the first American casualty in the American Revolutionary War.

      Little is known for certain about Crispus Attucks beyond that he, along with Samuel Gray and James Caldwell, died “on the spot” during the incident.[3] Two major sources of eyewitness testimony about the Boston Massacre, both published in 1770, did not refer to Attucks as a black man or “Negro”; it appeared that Bostonians accepted him as mixed race. Historians disagree on whether Crispus Attucks was a free man or an escaped slave; but agree that he was of Wampanoag and African descent.

      And here’s what is really considered the beginning of the Revolutionary war – when General Gage tried to disarm the colonials and the shot that was heard round the world was fired almost 5 years after the Boston Massacre:

      As a result of the Congress, which ended October 26, the colonies agreed to the formation of the Continental Association. This compact stipulated that the colonies would boycott all British goods starting on December 1, 1774, and would boycott the West Indies unless the islands agreed to cease importing British goods as well. As a result, importation of British goods dropped 97% in 1775. In addition, if the Intolerable Acts were not repealed, the colonies would cease exporting to Britain effective September 10, 1775. Departing Philadelphia, the group decided to return in May 1775, for a Second Continental Congress.

      In the spring of 1775, Gage began a series of raids with the goal of disarming the colonial militias. On the evening of April 18, Gage ordered some of his troops to march to Concord to seize munitions and gunpowder. The next morning, British troops encountered colonial militia in the village of Lexington. While the two forces faced off, a shot rang out. Though the source of the shot is unknown, it touched off eight years of war.

    • daniel bostdorf
      • Jimmy Agler

        Ty for the help

  • Pamby50

    Where is my high school US History teacher when you need him. He needs to take her and all the rest of the crazies to school to teach them our history. Not the revisionist crap they espouse.

  • porter

    was she for real

  • daniel bostdorf

    I have a correction 🙂
    It is Fox “Faux” News….with faux propaganda in the guise of “news.”

    And a network replete with “Reporters” and “anchors” who can’t get main stream real jobs in journalism….that seek the truth, free from biased reporting.

    And have a basic understanding of American history, especially political and socio-economic history…

    So why bother to even look at this network of nitwits?

  • dpaano

    Yeah, it’s like the dumber leading the dumb!!!

  • TomJoadisJob

    She’s protecting our freedumbs!