This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

'There is perhaps no area where the media is more willing to lie, mislead, and obfuscate than when it comes to immigration enforcement'

National Public Radio, in a fight against President Donald Trump to keep millions of taxpayer dollars coming despite its leftist ideology that offends millions of Americans and pushes political talking points as news, has unleashed a tearjerker headlined, "A journalist known for covering immigration is arrested by ICE."

However, to reprise Paul Harvey's famous one-liner, the "rest of the story," from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, notes that Mario Guevara, a Salvadoran national was arrested because he is "in our country ILLEGALLY."

The government statement pointed out Guevara "was arrested by Dekalb County, Georgia police for willful OBSTRUCTION after he refused to comply with local police orders to move out of the middle of the street. Following his arrest by local authorities, ICE placed a detainer on him. Following his release, he was turned over to ICE custody and has been placed in removal proceedings.'

Other responses, collected by Twitchy included:

"Example number 6,302,903,231 of what is wrong with American 'journalism.'"

"This is exactly why @NPR needs to be defunded."

"There is perhaps no area where the media is more willing to lie, mislead, and obfuscate than when it comes to immigration enforcement."

"Articles like this is why I don't want to fund npr."

Ironically, a lawyer representing three Colorado-based NPR stations suing over President Trump's executive order regarding defunding public media, according to his bio, "Steve Zanbserg," just unleashed a commentary at Complete Colorado insisting that it was unfair to "punish" the tax-supported organizations for what he claims is their "private speech."

He discusses now the taxpayer money, a "benefit" to selected groups like NPR and such, cannot be withheld based on a dislike of "the content of private speech."

He said NPR and its cohorts are private and nonprofit groups, yet it is only those groups that have benefited from public subsidies: Hundreds of other general news organizations, including those that are nonprofits, have not.

He explains, "To make the obvious unconstitutionality of Trump's executive order clear, consider this hypothetical: a future Democratic president signs an executive order commanding the IRS to withdraw tax-exempt status from any religious or non-profit organization that publicly opposes a Democratic party priority. No problem, right? After all, the argument is that no non-profit organization (e.g. the Catholic Church or the NRA) is entitled to a federal tax exemption, a form of public subsidy. If so, the government would be free to withhold that completely discretionary benefit — one that increases the burden on all non-exempt taxpayers — exclusively because it disagrees with those organizations' speech, right? No, of course not."

Yet, of course, that is almost exactly what Barack Obama's IRS did back in the 2008 election, when it deliberately withheld IRS status approvals for organizations that disagreed with Democrat talking points at that time. The IRS notably demanded from applicants details about the subject of their prayers, and much more.

The IRS eventually paid damages to some victims of its campaign, orchestrated by, among others, Lois Lerner.

Zanbserg continued, "The above hypothetical is not meant to say, nor even to suggest, that Trump's claim that NPR and PBS programming 'fuel[s] partisanship and left-wing propaganda' is even remotely accurate. In fact, it is not. But that is utterly beside the point. Even if it were true — that these two private organizations produced decidedly 'biased' or one-sided journalism — the First Amendment unmistakably prohibits any government official from withholding a federal benefit in retaliation for his/her displeasure with the viewpoints presented by those speakers. And that's why the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of Trump's executive order should, and will, prevail."

He said he believes in "subsidies" for "public media" so that reporters don't worry about angering the folks who pay them, and "to ensure all Americans are served even when it's not commercially profitable."