In response to recent questions regarding whether GOP candidate for president Herman Cain is merely personally pro-life and would therefore fall in line with the "pro-choice" but really pro-abortion position, in contradiction to science, ethics, and the mainstream of American exceptionalism (see the Declaration and Constitution), the following statement has been released by Herman Cain: 

Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply "order" people to not seek an abortion.

My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.

As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.

I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.

I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.

Note Cain's emphasis on the Constitution. Let us hope and work to ensure that Cain's approach to the question of life expresses in particular his approach to governance in general.

That is, that, if elected, a President Herman Cain would do everything "consistent with his constitutional role," to advance not just the culture of life (which of course would be a huge advance over abortofascism) but also to do everything "consistent with his constitutional role" to advance a culture of freedom.

Earlier today I read an article by Tom Tancredo in WorldNetDaily, and it was titled, "Herman Cain Is the Real Deal."

How do we know, according to Tancredo, that Cain is the real deal? Because Cain possesses what Tancredo calls the threee "Cs" -- character, competence, and commitment.

Sounds good, right? But this is not enough. Far from it.

Here is my reply, which I have posted on Facebook as well:

May I suggest a 4th "C"? The Constitution.

Would Cain's "character," "competence," and "commitment" be directed toward Constitutional governance -- or just open a new door for "conservative" Un-Constitutional governance?

We had that with the Bushes and RINOs, and that helped pave the way for the conceptually anti-American Obama and the modern Democrat Party.

If Cain is pro-Constitution, let him NOW, in INTERVIEWS, and DURING FUTURE DEBATES set forth his views in ways that clearly express a high view of constitutional and Declarational governance.

A "problem-solver" is not enough, not by a longshot, IF THE AIM IS FREEDOM.

What is needed is a CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVER who appreciates the principial connection between the Constitution and the Declaration -- where the center of gravity for human freedom and unalienable rights is not the state but the Creator.

That Herman Cain is framing his opposition to abortion in terms constitutional is an advance of freedom over barbarism.

Now let the man who would replace Obama and Obamaism do so on the basis of an full-orbed vision-for-freedom, which is precisely what is given in the Constitution and Declaration.