Restoring science to its "rightful" place

  Thus saith Dear Leader.
  Or at least Tom Hanks who claims this, in the new 17 minute revisionist history video, about Dear Leader and all his accomplishments.
  So what does this actually mean, restoring science to its "rightful" place in our culture?
  Let's look back at a New Scientist editorial which followed Obama's inaugural speech.

But the nod to open science will be most welcome, given the political and ideological interference of his predecessor, who obstructed stem cell research and only grudgingly accepted that humans are driving climate change. 

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost," said Obama. 

In his next sentence, he committed Americans to break their love affair with oil. "We will harness the Sun and the winds and soil to fuel our cars and run our factories," he said.

  The idea of "restoring" something to a "rightful" place means someone removed it intentionally in the first place. The New Science article goes on to point out that this means we'll pay more attention to Africa (ignoring George Bush's tremendous and unprecedented contributions to the continent), use fetal cells for research and institute abortion as a family planning method.
  Restoring science to its "rightful" place means that whoever's in charge gets to appoint "experts" to decide what "science" actually is true and then prioritize it.
  Again at New Scientist 3 years ago, we learn that America is selfish:

Obama also hinted strongly that he wants America to become a less frivolous, more sober country, less obsessed with selfishness greed and more willing to fulfil duties to others rather than insist on rights.

  By now, it's fairly obvious that the "science" to which these people refer is pretty much junk science, theory that has been proposed but remains unproven and is steadily being discredited year after year.
  How amusing that "scientists" worship their own creations of thought but mock people who believe in a God who thoughtfully designed the universe.
  And let's just admit right now that "science" is politics.
  "Returning" science to its "rightful" place means abortion. 
  It means we'll value research instead of human beings. 
  It means faceless bureaucrats will decide who gets what medical procedure.
  It means the privileged class now in current charge of the government think they have the right to blow as much money and oil on themselves but expect us to "sacrifice."
  This they celebrate.
  At FirstThings, a Catholic blog, a commentary reflected on the implications of this peculiar (and somewhat resentful) phrase:

For our new President, the proper place of science is beyond the murky waters of political compromise–it must be untethered from our old fashioned moral strictures and the bumbling roadblocks to progress that are the consequence of political restraint. Just as he denies in the speech that there are any potential tensions between our ideals and the practical demands of ensuring our security in an often less than ideal world, he simply rejects that there are any moral or political complexities born of out technological innovation that might justify some measure of political prudence, or even the admonishment of science. Obama’s view is not merely a oversimplification of the relation between science and politics, and consequently of science’s “proper place”, but a willful ignorance of the lessons regarding the dangers of a science divorced from prudence the twentieth century has provided.

  We can clearly see this divorce between morality and science in recent decisions regarding contraception and health care decisions.
  There's no room for religious and moral convictions in "restoring science to its rightful place." Easily accessible abortion will be next.
  Their religion won't permit it.