News
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the NY Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from NY Chiropractic College. He served as VP of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
By 2026 one truth should be impossible to ignore no institution is coming to save your health. Not the government, not Big Pharma, not the latest app wearable or headline grabbing guideline. Health has always been and will remain a profoundly personal responsibility. A libertarian view of wellness does not reject science or community; it rejects the illusion that freedom can be outsourced.
Being healthy in 2026 means reclaiming ownership of your body in a world that profits from your dependency.
The modern health system is excellent at crisis management and terrible at cultivating resilience. It treats symptoms well but incentives rarely reward prevention strength or long-term vitality. If you want to thrive not merely survive you must opt out of passive consumption and opt into active participation. That starts with movement. Humans were designed to move daily not occasionally. Strength training walking sprinting mobility work these are not fitness trends they are biological necessities. You do not need permission to lift weights take the stairs or challenge your comfort zone. You need discipline.
Nutrition in 2026 should be guided less by food pyramids and more by personal experimentation. Centralized dietary dogma has failed repeatedly because people are not averages. Real health comes from eating whole unprocessed foods prioritizing protein healthy fats and vegetables and paying attention to how your body responds. Read labels. Question marketing. If a product needs a government subsidy or a cartoon mascot to survive it probably does not belong in your body. Food is information not entertainment.
- Details
- Written by: Bruno Pereira
- Category: Press Releases
As Chair of the New Jersey Libertarian Party, I must address the alarming justification now being offered for the United States’ military removal of Venezuela’s head of state.
In recent public remarks, a sitting United States senator declared, “The days of narco terrorist thugs and tinpot third world dictators down south pushing us around are over. We are a superpower. This is our hemisphere. And we are going to start acting like it again. President Trump is taking back control.”
- Details
- Written by: John Paff
- Category: Latest News
|
|
The Assembly Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear several bills on Monday, January 5, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., in Committee Room 12 on the fourth floor of the State House Annex in Trenton.
One bill on the agenda is A4674, which would amend New Jersey's cyber-harassment statute to elevate what is ordinarily a fourth-degree crime to a third-degree crime whenever the alleged target of the cyber-harassment is a "public servant" or a member of a public servant's family. The bill defines "public servant" broadly and includes not only elected officials and judges, but also appointed officials, public employees, and others performing governmental functions.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
In the United States, most medical research is influenced, directed, and funded by two powerful forces: the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry. Together, they shape not only what gets studied, but what ultimately reaches patients. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the country, while major pharmaceutical companies provide enormous private funding for drug development and clinical trials. This relationship has created a system where public institutions and private corporations effectively control the direction of modern medicine.
The NIH primarily funds early stage research. Scientists apply for grants to study disease mechanisms, identify targets for treatment, and test initial concepts. This work is carried out in universities, teaching hospitals, and research institutes across the country. Because the NIH controls such a large portion of grant funding, it also influences what research topics are prioritized. Areas that align with mainstream models of disease and treatment, especially drug based solutions, are more likely to receive consistent funding than alternative or non pharmaceutical approaches.
Pharmaceutical companies step in once a discovery shows commercial potential. They fund later stage studies, large scale clinical trials, and regulatory approval processes. These stages are tremendously expensive and are rarely paid for by government grants alone. This means that if a potential therapy does not fit a profitable business model, it is far less likely to advance, even if it shows promise. As a result, the majority of treatments that reach the market are designed around patentable drugs rather than low-cost lifestyle, nutritional, or mechanical interventions.
- Details
- Written by: David J. Bier
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
David J. Bier is the Director of Immigration Studies and occupies The Selz Foundation Chair in Immigration Policy. He is an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. |
Originally published on Cato.org, republished under Creative Commons agreement.
On December 4, the Department of Justice (DOJ) disseminated a memorandum to all federal prosecutors creating a strategy for arresting and charging individuals supposedly aligned with “Antifa.” The memo requires DOJ to investigate and identify the “most serious, most readily provable” crimes committed by potential targets, including those with “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders.”
Specifically, the document defines domestic terrorism broadly to include “doxing” and “impeding” immigration and other law enforcement. Doxing is not specifically defined, but the memo references calls to require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to give their names and operate unmasked. Individuals who donate to organizations that “impede” or “dox” will be investigated and deemed to have supported “domestic terrorism.”
Therefore, it is crucial to understand that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consider people who follow DHS and ICE agents to observe, record, or protest their operations as engaging in “impeding.” DHS has a systematic policy of threatening people who follow ICE or DHS agents to record their activities with detentions, arrests, and violence, and agents have already chased, detained, arrested, charged, struck, and shot at people who follow them.
The purpose of this post is to establish that these incidents are not isolated overreach by individual agents, but rather, an official, nationwide policy of intimidating and threatening people who attempt to observe and record DHS operations. This matters legally because courts are more likely to enjoin an official policy rather than impose some new requirements to stop sporadic, uncoordinated actions by individual agents.
The Right to Follow, Record, Report, and Protest
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
For decades, Americans have been told that government-mandated health insurance would make care more affordable and accessible. Yet the opposite has happened. Premiums, deductibles, and overall healthcare spending have all skyrocketed, while patients face fewer options and more red tape. Instead of promoting freedom and affordability, government mandates have inflated costs and eroded individual choice.
A government mandate forces individuals and employers to purchase insurance that meets specific requirements set by politicians and bureaucrats, not consumers. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), for example, required all plans to include a long list of “essential benefits.” While this was meant to ensure comprehensive coverage, it eliminated flexibility and drove up costs. A healthy 25-year-old who only wanted basic catastrophic coverage suddenly had to buy an expensive plan covering maternity care, mental health services, and more; even if they would never use them.
These one-size-fits-all rules distort the natural balance of supply and demand. Insurance companies, forced to comply with costly mandates, raise premiums to cover the added risk. Employers, burdened by expensive group plans, cut benefits or shift costs to employees. Meanwhile, administrative complexity explodes. Doctors and insurers must hire entire departments to navigate compliance paperwork, coding systems, and billing regulations; a bureaucratic tangle that adds billions to national healthcare spending without improving care.
- Details
- Written by: John Paff
- Category: Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project
Since early September 2025, the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project has been pushing back against a new wave of "peace and good order" and "parental responsibility" ordinances in three Camden County towns: Barrington, Runnemede, and Haddonfield.
Since early September 2025, the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project has been pushing back against a new wave of "peace and good order" and "parental responsibility" ordinances in three Camden County towns: Barrington, Runnemede, and Haddonfield.All three municipalities are confronting similar issues—homelessness, aggressive panhandling, and groups of youth roaming business districts and residential neighborhoods. But in each case, local officials have reached for broad new code provisions that risk violating people's rights and exposing taxpayers to liability if the proposals are ever enforced.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—a piece of legislation that reshaped America’s relationship with drugs and, unintentionally or not, reshaped its future. The Act created the now-familiar system of “schedules,” ranking substances based on their perceived potential for abuse and medical value. On paper, it looked like a scientific effort to organize drug policy. In reality, it was a political maneuver designed to target Nixon’s greatest adversaries: the anti-war movement and Black Americans.
At the height of the Vietnam War, Nixon faced a nation in turmoil. The anti-war protests were loud, youth-driven, and politically inconvenient. His administration saw an opportunity to weaken the movement through criminalization. By associating marijuana with anti-war “hippies” and heroin with Black communities, the administration could justify raids, arrests, and media smear campaigns—all under the guise of law enforcement. One of Nixon’s top aides, John Ehrlichman, later admitted, “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”
To do this effectively, the government needed a legal mechanism, and the Controlled Substances Act provided it. Substances like cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin (the active compound in psychedelic mushrooms) were placed in Schedule I—the strictest classification—alongside heroin. Schedule I drugs were declared to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, making research nearly impossible. Scientists who wanted to study potential health benefits faced enormous bureaucratic barriers, expensive licensing, and social stigma.
- Details
- Written by: William F Sihr
- Category: Press Releases
Recently a branch of the National Archives released a mostly unredacted version of Rep. Mikie Sherrill’s military records to an ally of Sherrill’s duopoly rival Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Jack Ciattarelli. Among these records were Sherrill’s personal files, which mentioned how Sherrill was denied the ability to walk for her Naval Academy graduation because she did not disclose the names of those 100 midshipmen who were implicated in a cheating scandal. Rep. Sherrill was herself never accused of cheating and, by all accounts, served honorably during her time in the service. This is safeguarded information that is protected by the 1974 Privacy Act. Since the leak, these documents are being weaponized against her and her campaign.
We of the New Jersey Libertarian Party denounce dirty politics in all its forms. Regardless of the target or the intention, it is wrong to weaponize personal data. All individuals have a right to privacy, whether we agree with them or not. While it is true that candidates and public officials have an obligation to be transparent with the people they represent, the idea that a person’s private data can be released without any oversight is wrong. Further, we support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ call for an investigation. We hope that the guilty party(s) are found and that Rep. Sherrill is able to seek the justice she deserves.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
For decades, Americans were told to trust the Food Pyramid. Introduced in the early 1990s by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the pyramid was marketed as the gold standard of healthy eating. Its neat design suggested simplicity: a wide base of bread, pasta, and grains; moderate layers of fruits, vegetables, and proteins; and a small tip for fats, oils, and sweets. It looked like an easy-to-follow blueprint for health. But behind that tidy image lay a web of corporate influence, government policy, and agricultural lobbying that prioritized profits over public well-being. What was sold as nutrition guidance was, in many ways, a governmentsponsored marketing campaign for big agriculture.
The roots of the Food Pyramid lie in the powerful lobbying forces that shaped it. The USDA is not just a health agency; it is also responsible for promoting American agriculture. That dual role created an obvious conflict of interest. Grain producers, dairy farmers, and processed food manufacturers had immense sway over the final recommendations. It’s no coincidence that the base of the pyramid—the foods Americans were encouraged to consume most—was filled with carbohydrates from wheat, corn, and rice. These crops represent some of the most heavily subsidized and mass-produced commodities in the United States. By telling Americans to consume six to eleven servings of bread, cereal, rice, or pasta daily, the government wasn’t just promoting “health”; it was ensuring steady demand for the agricultural industry.
- Details
- Written by: William F Sihr
- Category: Press Releases
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder many have called for limits to free speech. Some of this is motivated by a worry that various media platforms might be a device for radical indoctrination, while others are deeply troubled by some people’s reaction to Mr. Kirk’s passing. Regardless of the intention behind these calls for censorship, an individual’s First Amendment rights must be defended, absolutely.
We of the New Jersey Libertarian Party vehemently reject all attempts to cancel, deplatform, restrict access to, or otherwise prevent individuals from expressing their views. Freedom of Speech, a cornerstone of American society, should not be limited, suspended or infringed upon by the government. The First Amendment was not created to merely protect a person’s right to express positive or acceptable views, but was intended to safeguard individuals from being targeted by the government if and when their ideas were unpopular. No individual should have to fear for their health or well-being for speaking their mind in public, or on their own personal media accounts. We may adamantly reject the content of their speech, and all have the right to distance themselves from, disagree with or even ridicule those who espouse ideas that they find abhorrent, but one's own personal ideologies, morality or politics is insufficient for disempowering others.
- Details
- Written by: Om Bhaskar
- Category: Selected Blogs
|
|
|
Om Bhaskar is a junior attending South Brunswick High School. He is a Debate Captain for his school's Debate Club, Secretary for Model UN, the Vice President for the History Club, and an Editor for the school newspaper. |
By Om Bhaskar
The state has messed a lot of things up. From overcharging hardworking New Jerseyans through horrifyingly high taxes to restricting their freedom to defend themselves with firearms, government-run institutions have proven themselves again and again to be either incompetent, dangerous, or both. Public high schools are no different.
In freshman year, I took a Government class in my high school, South Brunswick High School. The institution is highly ranked, being ranked #60 out of 406 high schools in New Jersey by U.S. News.
Now, it is important to note that most civically engaged high school students in my area are either progressive Democrats or socially conservative Republicans (the former is far more common than the latter). You would be hard-pressed to find a future history, political science, or pre-law major that even knows much about the Libertarian Party, let alone other third parties. Now, from my experiences in public school, there could be a reason for why this is. Simply put, schools seem to subtly push students into believing we only have two choices for governance.
- Details
- Written by: John Paff
- Category: Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project
September 5, 2025
Hon. Dave Siedell, Mayor and members of the
Haddonfield Board of Commissioners
242 Kings Highway East
Haddonfield, NJ 08033 (via email)
Dear Mayor Siedell and Commissioners:
I write regarding Ordinance 2025-11, scheduled for final adoption on September 29. Having reviewed the ordinance alongside existing Borough Code Chapter 158 and New Jersey case law, I believe the proposal repeats provisions long preempted by state law and, if enacted, would invite both litigation risk and constitutional challenge without meaningfully addressing homelessness.
- Details
- Written by: Jay Edgar
- Category: Latest News
New Jersey is seeing a disturbing rise in eminent domain abuse and government overreach against private property owners.
In Cranbury, officials are trying to seize a 175-year-old, 21-acre family farm. Their justification is to satisfy NJ affordable housing mandates. The township has already begun condemnation proceedings to take 12 acres for the purpose of building 130 apartments—robbing a family of land they’ve stewarded for generations.
Date: Sunday September 14th 2025, 3:30-5:00 PM
Location: Zoom online meeting, in person option at Jay Edgar's house, 8 Arneytown Hornerstown Road, Cream Ridge NJ
Agenda and zoom link to be published soon!
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
The Affordable Care Act, commonly called “Obamacare,” was “designed” to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Americans, but it also created major financial opportunities for insurance companies. At its core, the law tyrannically required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty (until the federal mandate penalty was reduced to zero in 2019). This mandate, paired with subsidies for lower-income individuals, brought millions of new customers into the insurance market—many of whom were previously uninsured. For insurance companies, this meant an immediate and sustained surge in policyholders, which translated into billions in new premium revenue.
Another financial advantage came from the creation of government-run online marketplaces where consumers shop for plans. While the ACA imposed certain regulations—such as requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions—it also guaranteed that insurers would have a central, highly visible platform to market their products to millions of potential customers. The plan comparisons often increased competition, but it also pushed more people to purchase coverage rather than skip it altogether, again expanding insurers’ customer base.
- Details
- Written by: Mike Guadagnino
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
|
|
|
Dr. Michael Guadagnino holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from the New York Institute of Technology and earned his Doctor of Chiropractic degree from New York Chiropractic College. He served as Vice President of Public Relations for the New Jersey Libertarian Party from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Guadagnino is the author of the best-selling book Fitness Over 50, 60, 70 and Beyond, available on Amazon and other major platforms. He also shares health and wellness insights on Instagram at @Dr._Guadagnino. As a regular guest contributor, Dr. Guadagnino writes on health care topics through the lens of personal freedom and individual liberty. |
There can be no true liberty or personal freedom if you are not in control of what goes into your own body. Every individual is born with natural rights—chief among them is bodily autonomy. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), a foundational concept in libertarian philosophy, prohibits the use of force or coercion against others or their property. So how does this apply to medical freedom?
While I won't rehash the intense government pressure and mandates that occurred during the pandemic, it’s important to recognize that many of those policies still cast a shadow today. To be clear, this is not an anti-vaccine message. If you choose to receive a vaccine, that is entirely your decision. It’s your body. Likewise, if you choose not to get vaccinated, that too is your right. Medical decisions should remain between you, your doctor, your partner—or just you alone, if that’s what you prefer. It is, after all, your body.
- Details
- Written by: William F Sihr
- Category: Press Releases
For Immediate Release:
July 6th, 2025
The New Jersey Libertarian Party Supports Digital Privacy, Decentralization, and Ending the War on Cryptocurrency
On June 17th, 2025 the Libertarian Party of Tennessee adopted a resolution to support digital privacy, decentralization and the end to cryptocurrency persecution. The New Jersey Libertarian Party applauds their resolution and is proud to stand with them. We steadfastly uphold the fundamental right to digital privacy, and recognize it as an extension of individual liberty in the modern age. Individual rights are innate to every person and extend into all areas of their life, be it in the physical or digital spheres. We support the goal of decentralization, unfettered communication and digital privacy as a means to empower individuals, foster innovation, and reduce coercive control by centralized authorities.
- Details
- Written by: William F Sihr
- Category: Press Releases
For Immediate Release
June 21, 2025
New Jersey Libertarian Party Condemns US Bombing of Iran
On June 21, 2025 President Trump announced that the United States bombed three nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. This escalation of U.S. involvement in this conflict was neither necessary nor beneficial. It will lead to further U.S. involvement, further casualties and domestic hardships.