In 1. you wrote "I didn't see her dual citizenship status. I'll hazard a guess that she's using her U.S. passport though."

She got her French citizenship in 2015, and according to the article visited the US in 2017. US citizens are required to enter the US under a US passport. Therefore yes, you are almost certainly correct that she is using her US passport, at the very least to visit the US. Otherwise, there appears to be no need for her to use it.

But .. so what? Would you change your mind if she did renounce US citizenship? And if so, why, and by how much?

She mentioned Honduras because after visiting there for a work-related trip she decided she wanted to experience living in another culture. There was nothing otherwise special about Honduras - to use your phrasing, I'll hazard that had she instead been in Germany or the Czech Republic she would have had the same thoughts.

She chose to first go to Guadeloupe, which is part of the EU, and then "the Caribbean and Latin America."

In 3 you commented about US protections on government interference in free speech. In 2, however, markoman pointed out that US companies expect to be able to control employee speech which is "laughably illegal" German.

The threat of being fired, while not the same as being jailed, still has a chilling effect on free speech. The more so in a place like the US where the socialized "safety net" is rather weaker than in Germany.

5. "with whatever speech they have assigned to you" .. I believe the prohibitions on Nazi symbols in Germany was partially based on restrictions to free speech imposed by the Allied powers, including the US.

Note that some speech - I'm thinking of speech which is the US is classified as obscene - is more free in Germany than in the US.

7. I don't understand your transition from terror attacks to German discrimination against Turks. Yes, it's there. So what? How does that indicate something which sets the US apart, given the long history of 'disdain' in the US towards blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics - discrimination which exists to this day, though no longer enshrined in the legal code.

You write most of Western Europe is "quite homogenous in its race and ideas"?

Could you define "race"? Does it mean something other than "has white skin"? Eg, the traditional US viewpoint was that southern Italians were a different race than northern Italians, the English were convinced of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race, and of course there's also the Teutonic race, as in "The realm of France, it is well known, was divided betwixt the Norman and Teutonic race" from Ivanhoe.

I don't understand why you think that Western Europe is more homogeneous in its ideas than the US. That is, don't Western European also think Americans are also homogeneous? Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Going back to your earlier comment concerning "tyranny of socialized govt", hasn't the US been a socialized government since the New Deal? I can easily find many people making that claim, and I think they are right. (I don't think that's a bad thing either.) Or are you saying that that the US is( socialized, but it isn't* tyrannical about its socialized government, while other European countries are?