<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.freetalklive.com"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
 <title>Free Talk Live - Michele Obama</title>
 <link>http://www.freetalklive.com/taxonomy/term/4972/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>The Cost of Obama’s security</title>
 <link>http://www.freetalklive.com/content/cost_obama%E2%80%99s_security</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Its pretty obvious that if the US president did not have the amount of security he does cushioning him from the consequences of the decisions he makes then he’d be a great deal more cautious when it comes to the decisions he makes. Same comes for the British Prime Minister &amp;amp; many other heads of state. But its with the US president where the issue of security always seems a bigger deal &amp;amp; of course it’s US presidents (past &amp;amp; present) who embroil the