Though
I don’t watch TV or any news programs, I’m informed enough to know that Greta
Van Susteren is some sort of news commentator. I’ve also heard, or read, enough
of her commentaries to know she’s conservative, and anti-Obama. Since I’m very
conservative and anti-Obama, what I have read from her, I’ve agreed with.
Today
I was reading through Facebook and saw someone’s post sharing what was titled
as her rant about Obama’s spending habits.
I’ve
seen plenty of headlines about the lavish vacations he and his family take and
other headlines criticizing how much taxpayer funds the Obama’s spend on
personal things so I had every reason to believe this was more of the same.
The
entire article was about spending taxpayer money on travel expenses.
One
thing she pointed out was that under normal circumstances, news reporters
wanting to interview the U.S. President would have to pay their own travel
expenses because the President wasn’t going to go to them.
However,
that’s just what Obama did.
He
traveled to California for an interview. True this one wasn’t with a news
reporter, but rather a talk show host, but it’s essentially the same thing. His
wife also traveled to California for an interview, just a different talk show.
While
Ms. Van Susteren did point out that past presidents had never traveled to
interviews, and these interviews were purely for entertainment television, as
opposed for news purposes, her main objection was not to why they traveled but
the means they choice to travel.
Granted her complaint was focused fully and
completely on the cost of that transportation choice. A cost we as taxpayers
clearly will have to pay.
I
agree.
It’s
expensive and we as taxpayers should question every such expenditure. I believe
it’s our constitutional right to do so.
I
certainly don’t understand why they had to do the interviews.
It’s
not like Obama can legally hit the campaign trail for 2016 and if he tried I
would fervently pray that this time the masses have wised up and actually
realize the man and his wife are anything but patriotic and we do not need them
in our White House.
But
Ms. Van Susteren’s biggest argument against the expense wasn’t about the
entertainment or how past presidents dealt with interviews, but the fact that
the Obama’s used two different planes to travel to the same place at roughly
the same time.
Now
I’d like to point out something to Ms. Van Susteren.
It
is also policy that the president and vice president don’t travel together.
Why?
Because
if something should happen we as a nation wouldn’t lose both at the same time.
I
do realize that Michelle isn’t the vice president. What she is, is the mother
of two beautiful young daughters, who call our president Dad.
I’m
the mother of five.
When
I have traveled it has been with my husband and kids and never by plane. But I
think young Sailor Gutzler would agree that parents traveling together can be a
tragedy for the children. She’s the sole survivor of a plane crash that took
her parents, sister and a cousin. I think she’d feel better right now if her
mom hadn’t been on that plane and was still here to comfort her.
The
Obama’s aren’t the only parents in this unpredictable world of ours who choose
to make separate travel arrangements.
You
may not like how much money they spent on this trip, but don’t automatically
assume their choice was purely for their personal creature comfort.
As
a mother who hates Obama, I’m not making that assumption.
