And, the potential Republican presidential candidates are off and running at the Iowa Freedom Summit. The Blaze reported that Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) wowed the crowd with his "go big and go bold" attitude. But, this isn't about Gov. Walker. His message sounds good and what he has accomplished in Wisconsin has been bold – actions Republicans in Congress should notice and heed.

No, this is about part of the message Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sent the attendees at the summit in Iowa. Cruz repeatedly called for "reigniting the miracle of America." That is a great message. The miracle of America needs to be reignited if we are to continue our nation as the constitutional republic the founding fathers created.

Cruz indicated that he and his wife, Heidi, were there for the same reasons as everyone else – "we fear for our children. We fear for our grandchildren."

It is exactly why many of us do what we do. We fear for our children and our grandchildren; we fear they will not grow up in a nation where individual God -given rights, freedom and liberty are protected but instead reviled and stripped away leaving misery in its place. We fear our children and grandchildren will suffer immensely at the hands of those indoctrinated by the government. And, we fear that some of our posterity will succumb and abandon the values we hold dear.

Sen. Cruz stated that voters should "support people who not only say the right things, but have a history of fighting for those issues."

This is something that all Americans can agree. It's not only important for candidates to "say the right thing"; it's important for those candidates to back up those words with actions complimentary to their words. In other words, candidates need to back up their talk by "walking the walk." Most Americans would agree this is something that has been lacking in Washington for quite some time.

Cruz went on to say:

"Iowa plays a unique and special role in the political process. The men and women gathered here today and across the state, you have a responsibility that you take very seriously to scrutinize any candidate for national office. To look them in the eyes and to hold them to account."

So, Sen. Cruz is advocating for the American voters in Iowa to hold candidates accountable. If there is any doubt about what Cruz meant, he goes on to explain.

"Well you know what? Talk is cheap... And one of the most important roles of the men and women in this room, the men and women in Iowa will play, is to look each candidate in the eye and say, 'Don't talk. Show me.'"

"If you say you support liberty, show me where you stood up for it. If you say you support religious liberties, show me where you stood and fought for them. If you say you oppose Obamacare, show me where you stood and fought against it."

So, Sen. Cruz is advocating for Americans to hold their candidates accountable. By Sen. Cruz's own rules, "if you say you support the Constitution, show me where you stood and fought for it."

A few commenters have indicated that questioning the eligibility of a candidate, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, to hold the office of President based on the "natural born citizen" requirement in a previous article is basically a "hit piece" against Sen. Ted. Cruz. Since when is standing on the Constitutional principles and asking potential candidates to be accountable dubbed "hitting" against a candidate? Is this not exactly what Sen. Cruz himself is stating for Americans to do – look them in the eye and hold them accountable?

No branch of government, legislative, executive or judicial, is supreme over the other. Each has their roles and are to participate in the "checks and balances" process in order that one branch does not gain more power and control over the other, nor does either branch usurp the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America. As we have seen, the Supreme Court has usurped its authority to hear cases or make "rulings" in order to implant "their" personal beliefs and opinions upon the people of this nation. And, the central government has usurped power from the states.

While many cite Supreme Court rulings "declaring" the definition of a natural born citizen, they have forgotten that the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 that clearly indicates the definition of "natural born citizen." Since Ms. Publius Huldah has already researched and addressed how the First Congress of this nation viewed "natural born citizens," it is imperative that all Americans learn it and understand how our government, all branches, have subverted the framers intent to serve the government's and political party's purpose, which is not necessarily in the best interest of our nation, and not just with the natural born citizen requirement for president.

So, the same requirement of natural born citizen has to be applied to Jindal, Rubio, and any candidate vying for the office of President. The reason Sen. Ted Cruz received so much attention regarding his potential candidacy for president was because of his and his father's dedication to the original intent of the Constitution of the united States of America and their willingness to proclaim it loudly and publicly. And, the questions were asked of Americans, who claim to support the Constitution, if they are willing to forego their own principles to support a candidate because "they like the message," "the Democrats did it," "Obama is not eligible," or any other host of qualifiers in order to play "tit for tat." It seems that a few were and are.

Jindal and Rubio have demonstrated their willingness to "waffle" with the pervading breeze. Who could forget the "Gang of Eight" immigration "reform"? However, these two should be held accountable, as well, to the natural born citizen requirement and their willingness to forego it for their own personal gain despite their talk of constitutionality.

To be clear, the message sent by Sen. Ted Cruz, standing on our supreme law of the land, is a message that every American should embrace. And, everyone embracing that message and stating that message should let their actions reflect their words. It is not about "liking" or "disliking" anyone. It's about upholding and supporting the Constitution, the principles of the founding of this nation, the laws of God and nature and refusing to participate in the act of hypocrisy. It's about preserving our Constitution and not bending requirements to suit a purpose, no matter how good the message or how well someone is liked.

Remember, as Constitution-supporting a president is or may be, Congress is the legislative branch of government. As such, Congress can be complicit in lawlessness, as we have seen with Obama and past presidencies, or they can function constitutionally, which they have failed to do time and again going back over a hundred years. The same with the Supreme Court.

Would Sen. Ted Cruz be a good president of this nation? To be honest, he would. Sen. Cruz would certainly be better than what has been in the White House for decades. However, it does not change the requirement that a president be a natural born citizen. If some, who say they support the Constitution, are so willing to overlook it because of their infatuation with a candidate, what does that actually say? You can decide that on your own as we all have a different answer.

In the meantime, we should all take Sen. Cruz's advice – look candidates in the eye and hold them to account.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.