Online Petition Seeks Missouri Secession after 2012 Presidential Election

Is this just post-election silliness or serious? White House forum draws attention from disappointed voters looking for a way out.

Considering Mitt Romney easily won Missouri on Nov. 6, it's not surprising that there are some disappointed Republicans in the Show-Me State. Some of them are so disappointed that they're petitioning to leave the union and create a new government.

That's according to reports around the state and the country, where at least 30 other states have seen similar petition drives crop up.

The petitions are filed on a section of the White House website. According to the Kansas City Star, if a petition gets 25,000 signatures in 30 days, the White House staff will review it and issue an "official response."

Missouri’s petition had nearly 13,000 signatures by midday Tuesday. It asks that the White House "peacefully grant the State of Missouri to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government."

The website allows citizens to make a petition for a variety of issues, including recognizing sign language as a language or refusing foreign aid to Uganda.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports "while there's really no chance the petitions will result in secession, those that get 25,000 signatures within 30 days will receive a some kind of formal response from the White House."

Texas reached the 25,000 mark on Monday.

Several petitions have been created since Friday, with individuals requesting that more than a dozen states be allowed to secede. The list includes Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia (x2), Tennessee, Colorado, New Jersey, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Alabama and Louisiana.

Is this just post-election silliness or do you think there are actually people serious about this? Do you think secession is an idea that should be given serious consideration—by anyone? Please comment below.


  • Two Online Petitions Seek S.C. Secession
  • Residents Petition White House For Florida To Secede From U.S.
  • Secession Movement Comes to New Hampshire
Tom Maher November 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM
A-Yup, brave "Motty." Say didn't the California Native Americans say the same thing after the Spanish arrived? Or don't they count?
The Missourian November 19, 2012 at 12:22 AM
You don't pay elected officeholders minimum wage. You pay them well enough that: 1) They are free to make controversial decisions that would otherwise have financial repercussions on their re-entry to civilian life. 2) That one does not have to be independently wealthy to hold office. 3) That they are not likely to accept bribes due to hardship. 4) That they are paid for the loss of their private life and anonymity. That is why you pay legislators well and provide them with generous benefits.
The Missourian November 19, 2012 at 12:26 AM
You aren't the minority? Seriously? For real? I don't think you understand how elections work. You see, people register to vote. Then on a chosen day we refer to as "election day," (which usually occurs on the first Tuesday in November), registered voters show up to vote. They cast ballots for a variety of offices and initiatives, and those votes are then tallied to determine the winner. The candidates and ballot initiatives garnering the most votes pass. Thus you are in the minority. That. Is. How. It. Works.
Tom Langley November 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM
I think the petitioners have it wrong. The purpose of the petition should not be to "ask" for "permission". Permission will not be granted anyway. The purpose of the petition should be to simply notify Washington that we are leaving. Then we begin to eject ALL federal employees from the state. Forcibly if necessary. Reject all future responsibility to Washington by no longer enforcing or accepting their laws or handouts. No longer sending them any money.
Larry Lazar November 19, 2012 at 11:01 PM
That's very interesting statement Tom. I have two follow-up questions for you. Question 1: Who exactly is this "we" that you are referring to that is going to "leave" while forcibly ejecting federal employees from the state? Question 2: Didn't a few states, ie the Confederate States, already try your idea once back in 1861? Why do you think this effort, if you were able to pull it off, would end up any differently then the previous attempt?
The Missourian November 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM
More specifically, if you did leave, what makes you think STL, KC, and Columbia would join with the secession? Note that those three in many ways are the economic engine of the state.
Tom Maher November 20, 2012 at 01:15 AM
Well now, let us follow Tom Langley's suggestion: "We" leave, then all of the Federal employees are ejected, forcibly if necessary, right? So, what if the Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman AFB peeps object? Does you gots bigger guns than them, Tom? And anyway, if "we" (meaning thee and fellow wingnuts) leave and Federal employees leave - then we gots a Librul State! Hey, that work's for me! Of course, ol' Tom forgets than almost every secesh state gets more money from the Federal Bluebellies than it pays to D.C.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Wow it appears I showed up at the party too early, no one was there as of yet, so I swing back by and the it is over. ;) I have read through each and every one of these posts. Aside from the name calling; to each other and to the POTUS, (which has not been nearly as bad as I had anticipated, and is to be expected) It seems this was a very lively debate. To those of us who signed the petition, as I had stated since my posts very early on, this was merely a symbolic gesture. If a state wishes to leave the U.S. it does not ask the POTUS for his approval. Personally, I signed the petition to add my name to a list of people who have been having our freedoms, privacy, and national security taken away. Most of Americans do not see this because it has developed into an art of slowly chiseling away while using sleight of hand tricks to divert the attention of citizens from what has been going on since about 1992. This chiseling started well before then, history shows the progressive moevment started in the 30s, but has been ramped up as less and less people pay attention. The typical American is simply too busy to take the time necessary to read through articles, reject the inherit BS, take what could possibly be reputable and research the facts, This is not a bash on anyone I am simply stating Americans, in general, have too much on their plate to do this.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:39 PM
This is my job and life, although I mean it is my duty as a citizen, it is also literally my career To those who stated we should all respect the POSTUS... Ok, well he decides he needs to respect the office of the presidency and uphold his sworn oath when he was inaugurated, that would be the case. He simply has not. I am not talking about his citizenship; I am talking about his attitude and demeanor. Telling the SCOTUS, "They should think long and hard before making a poor judgment call"; this along with two or three other statements he made publicly and while on camera. This should be alarming to so many that our sitting president is making threats (symbolically or not) to the highest court in our country. Between this issue, the siding with Arab Nations over countries we have either been official allies with via treaty; or with Israel (with whom we do not have an official treaty with them we have aided in their defense for half a century, thus setting a precedent.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Has this been said in public, in many cases? Yes. Most recently on 9/11 - 9/15 he stated the Benghazi attack was to be blamed on a man who made an anti-Muslim video. Therefore sending the message to the Arab World your actions were just. Now Rice, who was at the fore front of this cover story is the #1 candidate for the open Sec. of State position. Number 2...John Kerry. I am horrified Rice may become the replacement, but Kerry is not too great an option either. Just look at Rice's history/career over the past 20 years and you will see what I mean. Ok so maybe she did not have all the facts, or maybe she was sent out with false information purposely. Either way it’s wrong. Do not speak about which you are not aware of all the information, and have morality, character, and integrity if asked to provide Americans with a false cover story. Has anyone even watched this you tube video? In the scheme of the multiple outrageous racially motivated videos this is pretty tame.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Are you aware the man was arrested? On what grounds should he be arrested? Freedom of speech works equally for everyone despite the party they are more closely in line. He had the right to make this video just like an artist is allowed to display a portrait of Obama depicting him as Jesus during his crucifixion. While I may find something offensive it does not give me the right to tell him it cannot be displayed, for if that was to happen it could be me judged by our society for something I say or do. As I said the trend of stripping our rights has been going on in both parties since the early-mid 90's. From the 30s to then we were on a slowing moving roller coaster when it first starts out climbing a steep incline. During the term of Bush Sr and Clinton (1st term and part of second) it was at the peak right before the drop. Since Bush Jr took office we have been in a free fall and it only picks up speed. If it took 60 years to get from FDR to Bush Sr. it will take less than half the time to reach the bottom. Somewhere in the realm of 2016 giver or take.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:42 PM
It was Bush Sr. who actually signed the presidential directive ordering wireless wiretapping, but due to the incidents in Benghazi few even noticed Congress pushed through an extension of these wiretaps. No warrant is necessary, if for any reason the president or the Atty General see it necessary. With the withheld evidence of Benghazi and the "Fast and Furious" debacle I am not sure what they will see as necessary. Especially since Obama stated he was going to close Guantanamo (signed presidential order for its closure on his first day in office but it remains open) and the fact he spoke to journalists and citizens on record as saying he would in no way seek out an effort to extend the, what he called. "Unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps. Seems like everyone who was in a stupefied admiration of his charisma forgot to see these two promises (which were of the UTMOST importance to many of his followers) to realize he did not keep either of them. The renewal of the wiretaps was signed in September, two months before the election.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:43 PM
These are just 2 examples out of many which he has failed to follow through on, but the easiest to research for anyone who may think I am an Obama hater. I am not Bush Jr. set up these wireless wiretaps a full 7 months before Sept. 11, 2011. Also he passed the Patriot Act in the same manner The Affordable Health Care Act was pushed through. While there may be some important areas which the Patriot act covers they are vastly outnumbered by the extremely bad/dangerous ones. Just like with The Health Care legislation. Laws enacted which take away freedoms of any kind are almost always passed during a president's height of popularity or leading up to/during a crisis. Simply using sleight of hand Americans which many are oblivious to noticing because of the idea we need to be secure or free health care will save all of our issues within our health system. My wife being a nurse has seen some of what is to come when this Health Care Law is fully implemented. Signing a petition as a symbolic gesture merely sent the messages that we want the freedoms so many have lost their lives to protect, Obama does not have a mandate to any degree (winning an election be a few million votes is not a mandate no matter how you slice the Electoral College, and he needs to be made aware of this fact. .
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:43 PM
He may be making 48-51% off America happy but the remainder is to the same degree of happiness on one side, fearful for further loss of freedoms and outraged at how some things have been implemented since the late 1990s. Enough is enough Whatever issues important to his agenda are not passed by the legislature are signed via presidential directives, or even worse handed off to be discussed and pass by the United Nations, (or an organization which falls under the UN umbrella, I.E. CFR, ITU, etc.) Do I plan to take up arms and fight other citizens, no that is not my intent. Another Civil War is not what we need; we need a president who will not temporarily appease half the nation while ostracizing the other half. Same goes for Congress. If, by presidential order the man who made the You Tube video was arrested, and wiretaps are perfectly fine without a warrant or disclosure to the person involved according to his mindset, I leave you with this considering the hostility towards Christianity is gowning exponentially and the embrace of the Arab World is occurring before our very eyes. Whose side is he on? Furthermore what if instead of it being a painting of Obama in a Christ like pose, what if it was a painting which caused outrage with the Muslim nations depicting something just as offensive but using the Prophet Mohammad in place of Obama.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:45 PM
I am not saying I am anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, nor am I an overly religious right wing fanatic; I am merely stating why arrest someone for one thing but not the other, it should be equal on each side of the coin. Lastly, Obama was clearly many times outspoken of his support of the protest and eventual overthrow of the government/dictatorship in Egypt. Now the following year the Muslim Brotherhood is in control and the "president" who was victorious by a 52 to 47 margin has now came out and said a retrial is necessary in the case against the former dictator and additionally signed orders given him full control over the judicial court system and no policy enacted can be overturned or disputed by any part of the government. Oh and his "cabinet are from the exact same group he is, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD. He later clarified this to mean only certain issues involving “sovereignty”. Pardon me if I do not trust that and what his idea of that term may actually mean to him. Perhaps was the plan all along, perhaps not, it doesn’t matter it is happened/happening right now and out president supported it and thought it showed great courage of those protestors involved. Seems like the government in Egypt stole the Obama playbook but jumped forward to the last few chapters to make the process so quick it was done nearly overnight.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:46 PM
So if he supported that uprising, will he support a similar uprising as he travels the same path if that many protesters arrive at The White House? I would think not. Again what is good for one is not for the other. We would, just the same be fighting for our freedoms but not ne nearly as supported by our president was to the citizens of Egypt Oh and for the record there has been some debate, and some links posted regarding secession from the USA. As I said I don’t think, (and pray it does not) come to something of this nature. However according to our national laws, The Constitution and the ratified amendments) it clearly states nothing about allowing a state to secede this is correct. HOWEVER it does say any power which is not granted solely to the Federal Government and also any power in which an actual Federal law prohibits a state from enacting any laws or passing any legislation not covered by these two items is declared to be the right of the individual states. It is in plain English, and am surprised Scalia said what he did, but then again he stated the SCOTUS tries to stay away from any issue arising from the question of the meaning of a Natural Born Citizen. Seems like Bush and Clinton both appointed judges just right and
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:47 PM
Obama completed the task with his appointments where the Constitution at the Federal level is no longer followed or abided by but incorrect inferences can be made which can easily sway these justices in whichever way the sitting president needs them to be swayed according to his agenda. Again this should show I am not Anti-Obama, I have en equal disrespect for those who came before him who no longer use our governing documents to govern our country. Instead they have resorted to FDR era tactics of presidential directives and passing laws under the radar via other agencies, or making unconstitutional appointments while Congress is in session. FDR in implementing different areas of his "New Deal", which by all accounts was a colossal failure and was responsible for the phrase "recession", actually knew the SCOTUS would likely declare certain aspects unconstitutional devised a plan to redesign the Supreme Court to suit his needs. This is ACUTAL HISTORY BOOKS, not the ones which are brought home by the nation's children, and is not disputed.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 03:51 PM
So I know that was lengthy and it took a long time for me to write and for you to read, if you chose to do so, However I needed to make up for my lost time in this conversation ;)
RDBet November 28, 2012 at 03:56 PM
I had to stop reading this manifesto early on - when you build up this invisible enemy called the "progressive moevment". The all-powerful progressive movement...lol. I suppose Dennis Kucinech is Dr. Evil. Thanks for the laughs MO Patriot.
MO PATRIOT November 28, 2012 at 04:22 PM
I hate to break it you, and as I said I know it was lengthy, but there was not a single item in all of my "manifesto" which cannot be verified either through history books from the eras, or for more recent events they are all over. These speeches and quotes I mentioned are readily found in video form on many sites in unedited form. You however proved one of my first points by admitting you did not read the entire range of posts, and quit early on. Although I sincerely appreciate your honesty my simple point is: Few Americans will take even then 10 minutes to read a comment before a rush to judgment and ridicule. Had you finished the postings you might have learned something about our past, and how it pertains to our future. Although it was completely unintentional, you are welcome for the laughs on a most unfunny subject.
RDBet November 28, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Sorry, the progressive movement. What a force they are! Lol! I just can't read on. Change your name from MO Patriot to something less over the top, and I might give it a go. One could cobble together quotes, facts and video to support any sort of manifesto, conspiracy theory or fantastical -the Mayan calendar, to corporate facist rule etc etc. It's not that hard to do. It doesn't take a Ted Kaczynski to put one together.
Rachel Walker November 28, 2012 at 07:01 PM
"Few Americans will take even then 10 minutes to read a comment" Your "comment" came in at somewhere around 2700 words. That's not a comment, that's an ebook. You should call it 50 Shades of Cray Cray.
mike k November 28, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Obama may be your President but not mine, never has, never will be. Also he is a communist turd, is that plain enough for you.
Tom Maher November 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Say there, "mike k" - did you forget that he is also a Muslim as well as a St. Louis-hater ('Member the White Sox jacket he wore at the All Star game, thus dissing all of Cardinal Nation?)? Oh - I presume your Mom knows of her brave, yet anonymous, son's potty mouth and your kids will brag at school of their dad's extensive vocabulary?
MO PATRIOT November 30, 2012 at 06:16 PM
The single thing we can agree on is most likely this is a non issue and to those who signed a symbolic gesture. As my final posts I just would like to say while much of this was great debate, Tom Maher, posting around 15 times brought nothing to the table. It is very disrespectful to only reply with belittling, sarcastic, mocking comments or otherwise just name-calling. I try to maintain a level of respect to any forum member on any website. People, such as Tom are common on both sides of the political spectrum. However when he uses something sarcastic, such as Obama not wearing a Cardinals jacket, as a way to divert the conversation and simply poke fun off someone who posted a thought out comment is really strange. Strange as in why, even sarcastically, would he believe this stemmed even remotely from this occurring during Obama's visit? Also strange because he found it to be such a great use of sarcasm or really wants others to believe it is true, that he used it twice. Really? This coupled with the atrocious spelling errors, grammatical errors, and so forth achieves nothing. Everyone makes spelling errors when posting from time to time, they are in nearly every single one of his short attention diverting posts. This could be overlooked had it not been for him making a belittling and somewhat hateful comment regarding someone's choice of user name multiple times with different members.
MO PATRIOT November 30, 2012 at 06:19 PM
This is especially apparent in his post which he corrected the incorrect usage of Ravel. While the comment he replied to was atrociously inaccurate and in poor judgment it seems he was so disturbed by this, all too often, misspelling of the composer Maurice Ravel to really criticize it, all the while making serious errors in spelling and grammar himself.
MO PATRIOT November 30, 2012 at 06:19 PM
My single vile posting in retort to each of the 15 he so eloquently gave is this, apparently he has so much knowledge to share regarding this composer, that perhaps he suffered a traumatic brain injury much like Ravel did which can cause a change in temperament and common spelling errors in its early stages. If he knows some much of a composer who dies in the late 30s why would he not have some type of intelligent rebuttal? Oh and I believe you meat to use the word vernacular in your final post (to date) above. Yes his comment was a name calling one as well but don't criticize someone for something then make similar mistakes yourself on multiple occasions. Vernacular is not synonymous with vocabulary, although is used in such a way by so many. So don’t look to Tom for any suggestions of staying on point, how to maintain some level of dignity, proper use of grammar, or how to form an appropriate rebuttal. However if you want tips on how to degrade someone, divert the topic to something trivial, or apparently some great insight on the composer Maurice Ravel Tom would be the guy and should be able to assist you in those areas. It has been interesting how this thread has evolved over a few weeks, but just as any topic does it ends up being a far cry from anything relevant to the original topic or article.
Tom Maher November 30, 2012 at 07:45 PM
Oh brave (and yet conveniently anonymous) "MO PATRIOT" - may I chortle at your sanctimonious and pharisaic nom de Net? The Ravel comment was not incorrect and had no spelling or grammatical errors. But you knew that... I poke fun at self-righteous and narrow-minded prigs; I take it your skin is thin and your ears have been burning? Reread brave (and yet anonymous) "mike k's" comment and confirm that his was civil and free from an excrement-related noun - and then reaffirm that my retort was inaccurate (and free from barnyard epithets). Perhaps you might want to go several sizes up on your Jockeys™; after all, you are no longer in your high school condition and they seem to be pinching more than a bit.
Tom Maher November 30, 2012 at 07:47 PM
Oh brave (and yet conveniently anonymous) "MO PATRIOT" - may I chortle at your sanctimonious and pharisaic nom de Net? Quoting you: "Oh and I believe you meat [sic] to use the word vernacular in your final post (to date) above." May I giggle and guffaw again for your excoriation of others' misspelling? What is the old expression? Oh, yes: "Pot, meet kettle." And actually, my "MO (paranoid) PATRIOT," I did not use the word "vernacular" because it was not appropriate. You know - you might also want to review the proper usage of commas in your future rants (and DO go several sizes up on the Jockeys™). In retrospect, brave (and yet conveniently anonymous) "MO PATRIOT," perhaps in the future I should just characterize your non de Patch name as being simply "sanctimonious?"
Fred Oompahloompah December 11, 2012 at 04:13 PM
It is all nonsense! Just consider the consequences, complications and cost if such an action succeeded! It would be a nightmare for any citizen who lived in a state with out the support of the federal government no matter how flawed it is. Just imagine who would be the "President of the United State of Missouri"! Bwhahahah!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something