Guests - Betsy Smith, Laurie Moore, Wade Miller

Scandal at Mesa Community College: Drama Professor Accused of Forcing Female Students to Undress on Stage

Disturbing Allegations Emerge Two Years After Incidents Began

A shocking investigation has revealed that a drama teacher at Mesa Community College, Mace Archer, 56, is under formal investigation after female students, some just teenagers, were required to strip naked in front of their entire class during what was described as a "vulnerability exercise."

The allegations, first reported by the Arizona Republic, detail how Archer allegedly positioned himself in the director's chair and watched as three women undressed on stage during mandatory midterm performances at the college. Two of the women stripped down to their underwear, while a third student removed every piece of clothing under the glaring stage lights.

What makes this situation even more troubling is that these performances allegedly came after a two-year campaign of sexual misconduct that college bosses reportedly ignored. The incidents began in 2021, but are only now coming to light after students grew impatient with the school's lack of action.

"This happened before I left," explains Betsy Smith, spokesperson for the National Police Association. "I'm beyond upset about this. Number one, it tells me that they knew about it, they didn't instruct these girls to go get legal help or to file a police report when this incident happened. The on-campus police department was never contacted. They found out about this when it hit the news."

One of the most disturbing accusations involves Archer allegedly coaching a female student to dive into her personal experiences of being sexually assaulted as part of her "vulnerability" for acting. This type of behavior is consistent with predatory grooming tactics, where boundaries are gradually eroded under the guise of artistic expression.

Students Documented Complaints for Months with No Action

According to reports, students kept detailed records of complaints about Archer's behavior for weeks and months. One student, Gabrielle Monroe, said the point of the midterm was supposed to be for students to face their fears, not to end up nude, but "that is just what Archer made it about."

Monroe, who was one of about 16 students in a second-level acting class, described how on the first day of performances, two women stripped down to their underwear. On the second day, a student got completely naked. "We all knew what to expect," she said, highlighting the progressive nature of the exploitation.

Another student, Amora, a musical theater major, told an administrator she dreaded going to class: "I got severe anxiety every day before attending and sometimes can't muster up the courage to go," she wrote in an email to the chair of the Communication, Theater and Film Arts Department.

The chair, identified as Gannison, responded that she was "truly sorry" and asked for examples of Archer's behavior. The student provided a five-point list, but Gannison never contacted her back. Eventually, feeling unsafe, the student dropped the class, prompting another email from Gannison saying she was "truly so sorry" and that she "completely understand[s] that sometimes we experience discomfort that can be too great to continue."

This dismissive characterization of sexual misconduct as mere "discomfort" indicates a troubling culture at the institution that minimizes serious allegations.

College Administration's Concerning Response

Despite multiple complaints, Mesa Community College allowed Archer to finish out the semester, fully two months after what students describe as a "strip show," and even scheduled him to teach fall classes.

When contacted by media outlets, administrators from the Maricopa Community College district, which includes Mesa Community College, declined to comment, stating, "This is an active personnel matter. We cannot provide specific details to protect the privacy of those involved."

A spokesperson claimed, "Our colleges take any allegations of misconduct seriously and are committed to fostering a safe, respectful, and supportive environment for students, faculty, and staff." However, their actions—or lack thereof—tell a different story.

Even more concerning, the Mesa Police Department stated it's not currently investigating the accusations, despite the fact that they occurred within city limits.

"Who's doing the investigation?" asks Kathleen Winn, former member of the Maricopa Community College governing board. "Is it an internal investigation where they diminish the victims and they try to make plausible what happened there? Because I've seen them do this before, forcing good people out of this college and leaving people that were woke and perverted in place."

Archer's Background Raises Additional Concerns

Before joining Mesa Community College in 2021 as co-director of the theater program, Archer had a long career in theater academia, working at the University of Tennessee, Randolph College in Virginia, and as artistic director at Mount Hood Community College. He was also the director of several plays at Arizona Broadway Theater from 2008 to 2014.

This pattern of moving between institutions raises questions about whether similar behavior occurred elsewhere. "This is not the first time he's done this. This is not the first college he's done this at," Smith asserts. "I hope that part of the investigation involves going back to some of his other colleges that he worked at in Tennessee and Virginia and seeing if there are any victims there."

Accountability Must Extend Beyond the Professor

While Archer's alleged actions are clearly central to this scandal, the institutional failure to protect students extends far beyond a single faculty member. The hierarchy of the college, including the governing board and the chancellor, should all be held accountable for their inaction.

"They don't do a damn thing until they get caught, and now they are caught," Winn states emphatically, drawing from her experience serving on the Maricopa Community College governing board. "I know how these people are."

Multiple investigations are needed: a criminal investigation to examine potential crimes, particularly if minors were involved; a personnel investigation of Archer; and an investigation of the college administration to determine who knew about these allegations, when they knew, and why they failed to act.

As mandatory reporters, college administrators had a legal obligation to report these incidents, especially any involving minors. The fact that the campus police were unaware of the situation until the news story broke suggests a deliberate effort to keep these allegations under wraps.

"Everyone from the Chancellor on down is going to say, 'I can't talk about it because this is a personnel issue,'" Smith predicts. "But this needs to blow up wide open."

The Need for Vigilance in Educational Institutions

This scandal highlights the critical importance of parental and community vigilance regarding what's happening in educational institutions. As sexual misconduct allegations against educators have risen nationally in recent years, parents need to maintain open communication with their children about appropriate boundaries.

"This is a good opportunity for anyone listening who has a child or grandchild, a niece or nephew going off to college, to really sit them down and tell them that not everybody who is a college professor is a good person," advises Smith. "If they are made to be uncomfortable in any way, don't just tell the school but tell the parents and then contact law enforcement."

Too often, parents' first instinct is to contact school authorities, who may hide or minimize incidents. Reporting to law enforcement ensures that a record exists and that criminal behavior can be properly investigated.

As this story continues to develop, the hope is that justice will be served not only for the victims in this case but that systemic changes will be implemented to prevent such exploitation from occurring in the future.

Strategic Patience: How Trump Can Secure All DOGE Cuts Through Pocket Rescissions

Understanding the Rescission Process

Wade Miller, Senior Advisor at the Center for Renewing America, has outlined a strategic approach for implementing the spending cuts identified by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Rather than pushing for immediate action, Miller advocates for utilizing a little-known process called "pocket rescissions" that could guarantee all DOGE cuts take effect automatically.

"A rescission is when the president sends a message to the House and the Senate, then the president can withhold those funds for 45 days," Miller explains. "In that period, Congress can bring the bill up, pass all of it, reject all of it, pass some of it, but regardless of what happens, at the end of the 45-day period, if Congress does nothing, then the rescission package fails."

This presents a strategic challenge. If the administration submits rescission requests now and Congress rejects some of the DOGE cuts, those funds cannot be rescinded later. However, Miller highlights an alternative approach with much higher odds of success.

"If you do them after August 18th, the president can withhold those funds for a full 45 days. Congress can do whatever it wants on those packages, but because the president can withhold those funds for 45 days, it gets him past September 30th," Miller notes.

The significance of September 30th is crucial - it's the end of the fiscal year. "At the end of the fiscal year, the budget authority for all FY25 funds, all of the DOGE cuts we're talking about for this year, they expire," Miller explains. "If you submit a pocket rescission after August 18th, regardless of what Congress does, it goes into effect. We get those cuts."

Legal Foundation for the Strategy

This approach isn't novel or legally questionable - it's established in statute and has been used by previous administrations. "This is based on GAO reports. Previous presidents have used this power," Miller confirms. "Ford did them, there are GAO reports on that. I think potentially Reagan might have done a few."

The reason this process isn't widely known is that by the end of most fiscal years, there isn't any money left to rescind. "We're in a unique situation where you have Trump and OMB withholding a large amount of funds that they're not spending," Miller points out. "This normally doesn't happen, so there's normally nothing to rescind at the end of a fiscal year."

The legal foundation for this approach is solid, with Miller noting that "it's in statute, it's in the ICA" (Impoundment Control Act). There's even a 2021 OMB memo outlining this process, though it wasn't implemented at the time because there wasn't significant money available to rescind.

The Education Challenge

The primary challenge now is education - helping members of Congress, conservative activists, and the public understand why patience is strategically advantageous in this case.

"I've been sending this paper to members of Congress, and they're like, 'Oh, I didn't even know this is a thing,'" Miller shares. "I've not had one member of Congress come back arguing that this isn't a viable strategy."

Miller understands the skepticism some conservatives might feel when told to wait. "I understand why people want to do it now, and I understand the hesitancy until you understand what I've outlined. Someone saying, 'We're gonna do it later' - that's normally what the establishment tells us conservatives: 'Don't worry, we'll do it later,' and then we never do it."

The difference here is that waiting actually increases the likelihood of success. "In this case, if you're a conservative, strategically you want to do it later because it gives you an almost certain percentage of a high certainty that we'll get all of the DOGE cuts if we just wait."

The Comprehensive Economic Strategy

The pocket rescissions approach is just one component of a broader economic strategy that the Trump administration is implementing. Miller describes how multiple initiatives will work together to strengthen the economy:

"When you factor in the regulatory cuts and then the revenues from tariffs and then the economic growth we're going to have from extending the tax cuts, D-Rig, revenue coming in from tariffs, and then all of the $1.6 trillion or hopefully more, depending on what the Senate does - the $1.6 trillion in cuts in the reconciliation bill, I think we're putting the economy in a place that is going to be dynamite a year from now."

Miller emphasizes that conservatives need to see the big picture rather than focusing on individual components. "One of the problems that we're having as a conservative movement is we're looking at each one of these individually as our only path forward, and it's actually going to be a combination of action throughout the summer. When you combine their effects together, that will give us a clearer picture of the totality of what the Trump administration is doing."

This comprehensive approach includes spending reductions through rescission packages, reprogramming authority, or impoundment authority, coupled with savings from regulatory cuts (D-Rig) and tax extensions.

Immigration, Labor, and Economic Growth

Addressing concerns about labor shortages resulting from deportations, Miller provides data-backed perspective on why these fears are largely unfounded.

"The argument is much stronger that we have plenty of native workers to fulfill any of these positions," Miller states. "If you just look at the amount of working-aged, able-bodied males in the United States that are not working and not seeking to work - they're not counted in unemployment if you're not seeking - the number of people that are on Medicaid in that body, there's millions."

Miller points to policy changes that could activate this potential workforce: "We have millions of males that are able-bodied that just don't want to work. If a good job is made, if we turn the screws on kicking them off of Medicaid and pushing them into the labor market, then I do think that we have a lot of labor to fill most, if not all, of the labor demand that we would need after deporting millions of people."

Additionally, Miller addresses misconceptions about tariffs, explaining how they can actually benefit American manufacturing without necessarily raising consumer prices:

"If China's producing a product for 89 cents using slave labor, they're cheating on trade conditions, they're devaluing currencies, and it costs an American manufacturer a dollar and one cent to produce that unit of product, then a tariff basically can make it so that it's now going to cost China 99 cents, 98 cents, a dollar."

This creates a more level playing field where "either China ends up paying a lot of our taxes for us because they can't pass that on to the consumer... or it actually makes it so, given all of their cheating, an American manufacturer can actually compete."

The result would be job growth in American manufacturing, which could utilize the currently underemployed workforce. "If the American manufacturing industry and the job growth in the United States just starts exploding and we're starting to run short on labor, that's a different conversation, but right now we have plenty of labor to backfill any positions that are opening."

Obscenity in Public Libraries: A Battle Over Graphic Materials Available to Minors

Exposing Inappropriate Content in Teen Sections

Educator and child advocate Lori Moore has been fighting against sexually explicit material in Pima County public libraries that is openly available to minors. Despite resistance from officials, she continues to draw attention to books that she argues violate Arizona's obscenity laws.

"I brought books to the Pima County Board of Supervisors meetings because they are violations of the censorship-appropriate books that children should be seeing, and here they are in our public library," Moore explains. "I was telling the board members, 'Look, I know you provide money and funding to libraries, but then you seem to just cut them loose, and they can get whatever they want.'"

When confronted about the library's acquisition policies, Moore reports that a library representative told her, "Any book that's in print is up for grabs for them to order." This open-ended approach has allowed highly graphic sexual content to make its way into sections designated for teenagers.

Moore describes two particularly concerning books: "One of the books was called 'Let's Talk About It,' and it's in a very pastel cover, and it looks child-friendly. It's in the graphic teen section of the library. I never heard of a graphic teen section, but there's a couple shelves that are just graphic teen books, and it talks about all kinds of sex with all kinds of people who have altered their bodies."

Another book, which Moore describes as "The Field Guide to the F-word" (with the letter U replaced by a snowflake in the title), contains explicit sexual imagery. "It's adults, drawn pencil drawings of adults, and I mean, I would imagine gynecologists are the only people that have seen these positions," Moore states.

Confronting Officials with Explicit Content

Moore's efforts to confront county officials with this material have met with indifference. She recounts bringing one of the explicit books to then-Chairperson Adelita Grijalva: "I walked up to Adelita Grijalva when she was the chairperson for the board, and I said, 'I want to show you this book,' and I just opened it to the worst page I could find."

The response was disappointingly dismissive. "She knew I was looking for a reaction, so she obviously wasn't going to give me one, and she just methodically ran her finger down the page and she goes, 'Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.' And I said, 'Do you see anything wrong with this?' And she said, 'No.' I said, 'You don't see anything wrong with this for children?' 'No.' I said, 'You have this at home in your library with your kids? Is this one of your books that you would put in your home?'"

Despite multiple appearances at board meetings, holding up the books to show their content, Moore has been unable to get these materials removed from sections accessible to minors.

Legal Violations and Child Protection Concerns

Moore argues that these materials clearly violate Arizona law: "It's a violation of the Arizona obscenity laws. It is an absolute violation. If you look up violation for obscenity laws, it'll tell you that children cannot be shown or have access to this kind of material. Well, it's in our public library."

The conversation connects these library materials to broader concerns about the sexualization of children and the normalization of inappropriate content. "They're normalizing perversion," Moore states, noting that this problem has been developing for decades.

Moore traces her concerns back to her early teaching career in the 1980s when she first noticed concerning trends in children's literature: "I started my teaching career back in the early 80s, and you remember the Scholastic Book Club? It was so much fun to order stuff, and it came in, and the kids were so excited. I stopped ordering from that book club back in the early 80s because their book was 'My Two Dads.'"

The Broader Cultural Context

Moore and Winn place these library concerns within a larger cultural context of what they see as the deliberate sexualization of children and the erosion of traditional boundaries. They link these issues to changes in laws regarding children's medical decisions without parental consent, particularly in states like California.

"Part of that terrible bill or initiative is that anybody can bring somebody in, and no questions asked," Moore explains, referring to abortion access laws. "The pedophile or the sex trafficker could bring in a 10-year-old and get that child an abortion."

Winn connects this to a documented case: "There was a case in Colorado where it was the girl's stepfather - and he wasn't actually, was the mom's boyfriend, he wasn't even the stepfather, but he was in that role - and he kept getting his girlfriend's daughter pregnant. And ultimately, Planned Parenthood got sued, and the victim, this girl who was being raped by her 'stepfather,' no one was believing her, but finally she got to go to court."

The discussion emphasizes that these concerns transcend traditional political lines, focusing instead on child protection. As Winn puts it, "The bad guys, the evil, the predators, the people that are trying to harm our kids don't give a damn if you like Joe Biden or like Donald Trump. That's not the point of this."

A caller to the discussion, Christopher, reinforced these concerns: "They have literally taken discipline and just flipped it to where that's abuse. You're abusing them by trying to discipline them and show them... and then the current curriculum is lewdness, lack of self-control. They're grooming them. They're literally on every aspect... It's horrible."

Christopher points to the 1989 children's book "Heather Has Two Mommies" as a turning point: "That book is the tip of the spear. That sucker came out, 4,000 copies in 1989. You can currently buy that book for $9.71. Original copies are going for $3,000 on eBay because it's considered... a modern classic. They took them 15 years to get it in the schools, but when they got it in, it was just like the camel's nose or the slippery slope, and now it's an avalanche."

The discussion concludes with a call for parents and community members to be vigilant about what children are exposed to in educational and public settings, emphasizing that protecting children's innocence should be a priority that transcends political divisions.