Back in the day, TIME magazine was known as a decent weekly publication. Our parents read it to keep up with current events. It was a mainstay in the magazines offered to kill time in doctors’ waiting rooms. It arrived in mailboxes for those who preferred the convenience of home delivery. That was then. This is now.

Now the magazine is an in-kind donation to the Democrat Party. Like so many other magazines, TIME doesn’t even bother to feign an independent, professional voice. Democrat talking points seep into articles with impunity. This week the magazine offers some tips on how to talk to kids about “the situation with Iran”. TIME for Kids is here to help. The suggestions aren’t a script, you see, but a source of information you’ll need to talk to the youngsters.

Trust your instincts. You know your kids best. Use that knowledge to gauge the depth and breadth of your discussion. Sometimes, it’s best to let a child take the lead and only answer the questions that are asked. Often, brief and simple answers can satisfy a child’s curiosity.

Here’s the thing – the whole premise of this article is malarkey, to use a word from a Democrat’s campaign. I read the article against my better judgment. Call me a cynic but I don’t believe that there are enough precocious school children out here in regular America to even warrant an article with such suggestions. Are we to believe that kids waiting at the school bus stop are holding foreign policy discussions? Are the second graders waiting in carpool lines after school questioning our presence in the Middle East? How many kids in America do you think even knew the name of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani? High school kids can’t even name the Supreme Court justices, so why would I believe that younger kids are concerned about our “situation” with Iran?

Actually it is insulting to parents to presume any of this nonsense, especially that parents are looking to our intellectual betters in today’s journalism for answers. The only kids asking questions are those with parents looking to dump this kind of adult topic into the conversation. The indoctrination of school children begins early these days – just look at what liberal adults have done with climate change. Adults project their own fears onto young kids in elementary school, instead of allowing them to just be kids. We only have to point to the shining example of overpowering children with adult concerns – Greta Thunberg – to see the damage that can be done.

In the TIME piece’s suggestions, possible questions from the kids are posed and answers are provided. The first question is a basic one – Who was Qassem Soleimani? The answer, however, is problematic. “Qasem Soleimani was a top military leader in Iran, a country in the Middle East.” That simplistic answer only provides part of the answer. Soleimani wasn’t some innocent military leader – he was the mastermind of proxy terrorist groups around the globe. He was referred to as the number two man in Iran, for heaven’s sake. He wasn’t a man following orders, he was delivering the orders to militiamen to kill Americans, as well as others.

The second question develops the anti-Trump narrative. “Why did the U.S. take action against Soleimani?” The bad Orange Man chose the most extreme option given by U.S. military leaders.

President Donald Trump has called Soleimani a terrorist. Trump says Soleimani ordered attacks on American military and diplomats and was planning attacks against Americans in the Middle East. For this reason, Trump ordered the U.S. military to kill Soleimani. The drone attack took place at an airport in Baghdad, in Iraq. An Iraqi leader was also killed.

The U.S. strike came after a series of recent attacks by Iran against Americans in Iraq. On Dec. 27, a rocket strike killed one American civilian and wounded several U.S. service members. There was also a Dec. 31 attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Trump says Soleimani ordered these attacks.

This piece was written and published before Iran’s attack in Iraq Tuesday night but retaliation is discussed.

U.S. military leaders gave Trump several choices for how to respond to Iran’s actions. Killing Soleimani was considered the most extreme. Some top U.S. military and government officials have expressed surprise and concern about Trump’s decision. But the President insists it was in America’s best interest. “We will always protect our diplomats, service members, all Americans, and our allies,” Trump said in a Jan. 3 address from his resort in Palm Beach, Fla.

Note the mention that military and government officials were surprised and concerned by the choice. Parents are now told to plant a seed of doubt over Trump’s judgment. I’m old enough to remember when the office of president was respected, even if an adult didn’t like the man. We are supposed to come together as a country. You know, country over party. How many times have anti-Trumpers said that? Also, why would the military present an option to the Commander-in-Chief if it wasn’t a legit proposal?

On Jan. 3, President Trump warned Iran not to retaliate. If it does, he said, the U.S. is “ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary.” A day later, Trump wrote on Twitter that the U.S. had targeted 52 Iranian sites, including places that are important to Iranian culture. But according to international law, strikes on cultural sites are illegal.

Fortunately, Trump cleared that up himself. He will follow the law, he said. Frankly, in the heat of his tweet, I don’t think he knew that cultural sites are protected. Once he found out, he corrected himself. He’s a businessman, not a political wonk. Sometimes that fact arises.

The article conveniently glosses over the scope of the history of conflicts between Iran and America. The revolution and hostage-taking in 1979 are mentioned as the beginning of current conflicts then it jumps to 2018 and President Trump withdrawing from the JCPA. Of course.

This didn’t start with Trump. However, he is not a typical politician. He’s a street fighter. He took an opportunity to take out a very evil man and that is a good thing. Scaring school children over future retaliations or actions by bad guys is abusive to innocent minds. Let the kids be kids. Stop dragging them into politics at such tender ages.