• Locked hair requires less daily manipulation compared to traditional hairstyles. Constant combing, brushing, and styling can lead to hair breakage and damage over time.

Locked hair, by its nature, doesn’t require frequent styling or combing, reducing the risk of mechanical damage.

Natural protective style:

  • The locking process itself can act as a form of protective styling. The tangled structure provides a natural barrier that helps protect the hair from environmental elements and physical stressors.

This can contribute to the overall health and strength of the hair.

Less tension on the hair shaft:

  • Traditional styling methods often involve tight hairstyles, braids, or ponytails, which can exert tension on the hair shaft and lead to breakage.

With locked hair, the natural matting and coiling reduce the need for tight styles, minimizing tension on the hair and potentially promoting healthier strands.

Preservation of natural oils:

  • Locked hair tends to retain natural oils better than loose hair because the tangled structure helps distribute oils along the length of the hair shaft.

This can contribute to enhanced moisture retention, preventing dryness and reducing the risk of breakage.

While locked hair may have these potential advantages, it’s important to note that individual experiences can vary, and not everyone will find that locked hair is the best option for them.

Hair care practices are subjective, and what works for one person may not work for another. Additionally, proper care, hygiene, and maintenance are still essential for keeping locked hair healthy.

Regular washing, moisturizing, and, if needed, professional maintenance can contribute to the overall health and appearance of locked hair.

Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta used one word to summarise what his team did away to Everton at the weekend that they hadn’t managed in three previous visits: solid.

“We looked really solid,” the Basque boss noted. “We gave very little away – if I can say, nothing – because they didn’t have a single chance. In the end, we found a way to win… and we were really solid defensively as well.”

It’s not as if Arsenal haven’t been “solid” for over a year now, compared to their previous selves. William Saliba arriving into the side transformed the backline, adding a warrior to the centre of the defence and allowing Ben White to move out to right-back. The Gunners conceded just 43 times in the Premier League last term – that’s the lowest since 2013/14, when Per Mertesacker and Laurent Koscielny formed one of the best central defensive partnerships in the league. 

William Saliba celebrates the 2nd Arsenal goal, scored by Declan Rice during the Premier League match between Arsenal FC and Manchester United at Emirates Stadium on September 03, 2023 in London, England.

William Saliba has been transformational for the Gunners (Image credit: Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)

But statistically, Arsenal have gone up another level in defence. Only Manchester City (3.4) have conceded fewer Expected Goals than Arsenal so far this season (4.0). City have let in three goals to Arsenal’s four, at the start of the campaign.


A woman who breastfeeds her husband regularly says the habit has made their ‘marriage stronger’.


Rachel Bailey, 30, first started breastfeeding hubby Alexander, also 30, back in 2016, admitting it felt ‘weird’ at first, but now argue it’s ‘perfectly fine’ while also insisting it’s not a ‘kink’.

The mum-of-three found she was over-lactating when nursing their kids, so Alexander decided to help.


She recalled: “When my eldest child, Troy, now seven, was breastfeeding, I went away on a cruise with Alexander.

“However, I forgot my breast pump and was badly engorged for two days. I was in so much pain and I was scared about getting an infection, so we decided that my husband was going to try drinking the milk to relieve me.

“We were nervous about the idea of him breastfeeding from me as we thought it seemed weird, but as soon as we did it, we realised it was perfectly fine.


“Alexander said that the milk was really different to how he expected it to taste, compared to the normal milk he was used to drinking.”


“We realised there was nothing wrong with me breastfeeding him, and it would actually be good for him as it is so nutritious.

“He didn’t get a cold for two years after he started drinking my milk and so many people said his skin was so much better too.

“He ended up loving the taste of my breast milk and even prefers it to cow’s milk now.

“It’s not a kink for us. It started as Alexander just helping me out when I was in pain, but it turned into more of an emotional bonding thing.

“I love breastfeeding him as it allows us to spend quality time together. It’s definitely brought us closer as a couple.”

Rachel, from Florida, found she over-lactated again with their two younger kids, six-year-old Aria and two-year-old Matthew at which point Alexander gladly stepped back in to help.

According to Rachel, she makes sure the children get their fill first, before giving to her partner – who now only gets fed with her milk at night, as opposed to breakfast, lunch and dinner, as she’s producing less these days.

“It’s funny because if I eat something spicy, it also gives Alexander gas too,” she said.

“Shortly after giving birth, when I was producing the most milk, Alexander was drinking my milk three to four times a day.

“Obviously the babies are always fed first before it’s his turn. He would spend about five to ten minutes on each boob.

“It’s a bit of a taboo subject, but we wanted to share it because we don’t think it’s bad and we aren’t ashamed. It was an instant relief when Alexander latched on, and it stopped me from being in pain.

“On top of that, it has also created a more special bond between us which we never would have had if we didn’t start this.

“Nothing bad has come from it at all, so why should it be something that is hidden?”

Rachel said she felt ‘sad’ she had to reduce the breastfeeding with Alexander, as it had been a ‘nice experience’ that left him ‘much more energised’.

However, she said as it was so special, it brought them ‘closer than every before’.



Those glorious days when Naira was stronger than Dollar will return - Pastor Adeboye

The General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, Pastor Enoch Adeboye, has said that Nigeria will experience glorious days again.


Adeboye said this while preaching on ‘Uncommon Miracles’ during the September Thanksgiving Service of the church at the RCCG, National Headquarters, Ebute Metta, Lagos on Sunday, September 3. 


He said this while recounting a time in his life many years ago when his wife, Pastor Folu, came to him asking for N5000.

‘’N5000 of those days when the Naira was stronger than the dollar. Don’t worry, those days will return. I know you don’t believe me. If the lord I serve is still on his throne, those glorious days will return.” he said

Watch a video of him speaking below…





The United States has spent the past five years pushing to reduce its reliance on China for computer chips, solar panels and various consumer imports amid growing concern over Beijing’s security threats, human rights record and dominance of critical industries.

But even as policymakers and corporate executives look for ways to cut ties with China, a growing body of evidence suggests that the world’s largest economies remain deeply intertwined as Chinese products make their way to America through other countries. New and forthcoming economic papers call into question whether the United States has actually lessened its reliance on China — and what a recent reshuffling of trade relationships means for the global economy and American consumers.

Changes to global manufacturing and supply chains are still unfolding, as both punishing tariffs imposed by the administration of former President Donald J. Trump and tougher restrictions on the sale of technology to China imposed by the Biden administration play out.

The key architect of the latest restrictions — Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary — is meeting with top Chinese officials in Beijing and Shanghai this week, a visit that underscores the challenge facing the United States as it seeks to reduce how much it depends on China at a moment when the countries’ economies share so many ties.

These reworked trade rules, along with other economic changes, have caused China’s share of imports into the United States to fall as the share of imports into the U.S. from other low-cost countries like Vietnam and Mexico have climbed. The Biden administration has also pumped up incentives for producing semiconductors, electric cars and solar panels domestically, and manufacturing construction in the United States has been rising quickly.

But new research discussed at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo., on Saturday found that while global trade patterns have reshuffled, American supply chains remain very reliant on Chinese production — just not as directly.

In their paper, the economists Laura Alfaro at Harvard Business School and Davin Chor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth wrote that China’s share of U.S. imports fell to about 17 percent in 2022 after peaking at about 22 percent in 2017, as the country accounted for a smaller share of America’s imports in categories like machinery, footwear and telephone sets. As that happened, places like Vietnam gained ground — supplying the U.S. with more apparel and textiles — while neighbors like Mexico began sending more car parts, glass, iron and steel.

That would seem to be a sign that the United States is lessening its reliance on China. But there’s a hitch: Both Mexico and Vietnam have themselves been importing more products from China, and Chinese direct investment into those countries has surged, indicating that Chinese firms are setting up more factories there.

The trends suggest that firms may simply be moving the last steps in their lengthy supply chains out of China, and that some companies are using countries like Vietnam or Mexico as staging areas to send goods that are still partly or largely made in China into the United States.

While proponents of decoupling argue that any move away from China may be a good thing, the reshuffling appears to have other consequences. The paper finds that shifting supply chains are also associated with higher prices for goods.

A 5 percentage point drop in the share of imports coming from China may have pushed up prices on Vietnamese imports by 9.8 percent and Mexican imports by 3.2 percent, based on the authors’ calculations. While more research is needed, the effect could be slightly contributing to consumer inflation, they say.

“That is our first caution, this is likely to have cost effects, and the second caution is that it is unlikely to diminish dependence” on China, Ms. Alfaro said in an interview.

The research echoes findings from a forthcoming paper by Caroline Freund of the University of California, San Diego, and economists at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which examined how trade in specific imports from China had changed since Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs on them.

That paper found that tariffs had a substantial impact on trade, reducing U.S. imports of the goods that were subject to the levies, even as the absolute value of U.S. trade with China continued to rise.

The countries that were able to capture the market share lost by China were those that already specialized in making the products that were subject to tariffs, like electronics or chemicals, as well as countries that were deeply integrated into China’s supply chains and had a lot of trade back and forth with China, Ms. Freund said. That included Vietnam, Mexico, Taiwan and others.

“They’re also increasing imports from China, precisely in those products that they’re exporting to the U.S.,” she said.

What this all means for efforts to bring manufacturing back to the United States is unclear. The researchers come to different conclusions about how much that trend is occurring.

Still, both sets of researchers — as well as other economists at Jackson Hole, the Fed’s most closely watched annual conference — pushed back on the idea that these supply-chain shifts meant that global trade overall was retrenching, or that the world was becoming less interconnected.

The pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and tensions between the United States and China have prompted some analysts to speculate that the world may turning away from globalization, but economists say that trend is not really borne out in the data.

“We don’t see de-globalization at a macro level,” Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization, said during a panel at the Jackson Hole symposium. But she pointed to what she characterized as a worrying change in expectations.

“Rhetoric on de-globalization is taking hold, and that feeds into the political tensions and then into the policymaking,” she said. “My fear is that rhetoric might turn into reality and we might see this shift in investment patterns.”

Others at Jackson Hole warned of other consequences, such as product shortages.

A move toward production domestically or in only closely allied countries could “imply new supply constraints, especially if trade fragmentation accelerates before the domestic supply base has been rebuilt,” Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, said in a speech on Friday.

Global supply chains tend to change slowly, because it takes time for companies to plan, invest in and construct new factories. Economists are continuing to track current changes to global sourcing.

Given growing geopolitical tensions with China as well as more recent troubles in the country’s economy, further shifts in global supply chains may be unavoidable.

One question for economists now, Ms. Alfaro says, is whether the economic benefits from moving factories back to the United States or other friendly countries — like innovation in the U.S. manufacturing sector — will ultimately outweigh the costs of the strategy, for example, the higher prices paid by consumers.

And separately, Ms. Freund said she believed the costs of reshoring had been “really under considered” by the government and others.

The typical narrative was that “we’re going to bring it all back and we’re going to have all these jobs and it’s all going to be hunky dory, but, in fact, it’s going to be extremely costly to do that,” she said. “Part of the reason we had such low inflation in the past was because we were bringing in lower cost goods and improving productivity through globalization.”

?I?ll be back stronger,? Nigerian athlete, Tobi Amusan reacts after 100m World title defeat

Nigerian athlete, Tobi Amusan has assured fans that she will be back “stronger” next year after she lost her world women’s 100m hurdles crown to Jamaica’s Danielle Williams on Thursday, August 24, in Budapest.



Jamaica’s Danielle Williams won the title in a season-best of 12.43s while Olympic champion, Puerto Rico’s Jasmine Camacho-Quinn came second in 12.44s and USA Kendra Harrison came third in 12.46s.

Despite a slow start, the world hurdles record holder recovered in time, clocking 12.56s to finish ahead of Jamaican Achkara Nungent’s 12.60 seconds and Dutch Nadine Visser’s 12.62 seconds.

Amusan came 6th in 12.62s in her third consecutive final.


In an interview with journalists after the game, Amusan said it was quite “a journey getting into the final” despite all she had gone through in the last couple of weeks.


“It has been God, my team and my family,” the 2022 gold winner told reporters.



She thanked all her fans for supporting her through the ups and downs, promising that she will be back stronger.


Amusan hopes to get her “medal” back next year.


“Yeah, it’s a tough one; nobody likes to lose but considering what I have gone through in the past couple of months, I’m so grateful that I came out,” she enthused.


The EIU, renowned for its accurate economic and political forecasts, also predicted the rise of Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s (LP) presidential candidate, as a formidable force in the 2027 elections.

The EIU’s latest report, released during the weekend, restated their initial projection of Tinubu’s victory before the 2023 general election. The report, however, suggests that the court challenges brought forth by the opposition parties are unlikely to change the outcome.

Following the electoral process conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), President Bola Tinubu, representing the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), emerged as the winner, defeating 17 other candidates with an impressive total of 8,794,726 votes.

INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, declared that the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, secured the second position with 6,984,520 votes, while Peter Obi garnered 6,101,533 votes, placing third in the election. Rabiu Kwankwaso of the New Nigeria’s People Party (NNPP) came fourth with 1,496,687 votes.

Both Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have raised concerns over the outcome and are challenging President Tinubu’s victory in the Presidential Election Petitions Court.

According to the EIU report, President Tinubu, representing the APC, secured victory with 36.6 per cent of the vote, focusing on gaining support from the Muslim north. However, the report also notes that calls for secession from the Christian-majority south may intensify in response to his win.

Since taking office in May, President Tinubu has embarked on a campaign of market reform that is unprecedented in Nigerian history.

The reforms include deregulating the foreign-exchange market and petrol pricing, which are expected to strengthen the economy in the long run, but may lead to short-term hardships for consumers.

The report highlights that this could potentially lead to mass unrest amid the country’s existing security crises, widespread poverty, and high unemployment rates.

The EIU predicts that President Tinubu’s reform agenda may lose momentum over time as his political capital wanes. The report also indicates that Nigerian politics is fluid, with party allegiances often driven by political convenience rather than ideology.

By Jason Isaac for RealClearWire

Hope you don’t have any exciting weekend plans. By the time you read this, humanity has already been wiped out.

Hasn’t it?

On June 21, 2018, Greta Thunberg tweeted that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.” Five years have come and almost gone, and the tweet has been suspiciously deleted.

Thunberg is claiming her point was misinterpreted, but any way you look at it, the climate cartel is dead wrong — again — about the fate of humanity. In fact, there’s almost nothing about the climate change movement that stands up to science.

Since Thunberg’s fatalist tweet, climate rhetoric has risen to a fever pitch, but fossil fuel usage hasn’t dipped at all. Nationwide oil, natural gas, and coal consumption last year was about equal to annual averages from the 2010s.

It’s not for lack of trying. Even after decades of multibillion-dollar subsidies and seemingly unanimous public support, renewables still only represent 4% of our energy. As nice as wind and solar energy sound, renewable technology just isn’t capable of serving as a primary energy source. It may not be for generations, if ever. If “whole of government” support from Washington, mind-boggling corporate investment, and rabid virtue-signaling from the media and pop culture isn’t enough to move the needle, what will?

Related: Climate Scold Greta Thunberg Subject Of A Criminal Conspiracy In India

No matter how shrill the climate cartel cries that the end is near, the American public just isn’t willing to sacrifice the benefits of affordable, reliable energy — which only fossil fuels can provide.

They see through the disinformation the climate cartel is spreading. Not only is the human race nowhere near the brink of extinction, but our lives and our environment are better than ever before.

In 1980, just over 40 years ago, nearly half the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Today, the number is just 8%. Global life expectancy has skyrocketed from 51 to over 70, and over 80 in developed countries. Every statistic, from infant and maternal mortality to education and gender equality, has meaningfully improved as access to affordable, reliable energy has expanded.

And in America, at least, the environment is cleaner than ever. Air pollution is down nearly 80% since 1980, and the U.S. is ranked number one in the world for access to clean and safe drinking water.

We’ve also grown more resilient to our natural surroundings, even though the average temperature has warmed about a degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. We are 99% less likely to die in a climate-related natural disaster than our great-grandparents were. Interestingly, resiliency to these natural disasters is improving at a much faster rate than to non-climate-related natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanoes. Warmer weather actually seems to improve the human condition, since cold is far deadlier than heat and slightly higher carbon dioxide concentrations stimulate plant and crop growth.

Related: Greta Thunberg Turns On Biden – Says His Actions Are ‘Not Nearly Enough’ To Fight Global Warming

All this progress has happened while fossil fuels have remained by far the dominant energy source, the global population has boomed, and our economy has steadily grown. Fossil fuels aren’t the enemy — they’re the key to human flourishing.

How has the climate cartel gotten it so wrong over and over again? Ironically, the faction constantly demanding blind allegiance to “the science” doesn’t understand science at all.

Climate change predictions, like those Greta Thunberg used to predict the not-so-impending apocalypse, are formulated using statistical data models. Modeling is used in many industries for many purposes, but like any computer program, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. And the leading climate change model uses outdated, nonsensical inputs, like near-global reliance on coal and lack of any environmental technology. This model, which is used by the United Nations, the EPA, and nearly every climate-centric organization around the world, has overestimated historical warming every single time.

An unbiased, thorough review of climate science reveals that warming is likely to remain mild and manageable while our resilience to all manner of challenges, climate-related or otherwise, continues to improve.

Humanity wasn’t supposed to survive 2000, 2009, 2012, or 2020, either. Yet here we are, enjoying the benefits of longer, healthier, more comfortable lives than ever before.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Political Insider.

By Tyler O’Neil for The Daily Signal

In order to win a defamation lawsuit, the person suing must convince the court and ultimately the jury that the slanderer didn’t just publish something false, but that he did so even while suspecting that the attack was false.

Immigration enforcement activist D.A. King’s lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center made it to the discovery process while so many other lawsuits have failed precisely because King showed that the SPLC had reason to doubt the truth of its claim that his organization, the Dustin Inman Society, was an “anti-immigrant hate group.” In fact, the SPLC had explicitly stated that the society was not a “hate group” in 2011, but it reversed course in 2018, right after registering a lobbyist to oppose a bill the society supported.

As I wrote in my book “Making Hate Pay,” the SPLC routinely brandsmainstream conservative and Christian organizations “hate groups,” putting them on a map with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. This smear inspired a terrorist attack in 2012, but when conservatives sue to defend their good names in court, they repeatedly fail, in part because they do not allege that the SPLC itself doubted the “hate group” smear.

King can claim that, and newly revealed evidence bolsters his claim even further.

According to an article King unearthed on the SPLC website, not only did the SPLC state publicly that his group was not a “hate group” before it reversed course, but an SPLC whistleblower who went on to describe the SPLC’s “hate” accusations as a “highly profitable scam” had himself been involved in the SPLC’s monitoring of King’s organization. He even quoted a source who stated that an early version of King’s organization was not a “traditional ‘hate’ group.”

Related: Chick-fil-A Backs Away From Chick-fil-A Volunteer’s 2017 Donation To The Southern Poverty Law Center

In 2019, the SPLC fired its co-founder, Morris Dees, amid a racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal that barely made a blip in the legacy media. At the time, a former SPLC employee by the name of Robert Moser published an article, “The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center” in The New Yorker.

Moser wrote about the guilt he “couldn’t help feeling about the legions of donors who believed that their money was being used, faithfully and well, to do the Lord’s work in the heart of Dixie. We were part of the con, and we knew it.” He wrote that SPLC staffers would chat “about the oppressive security regime, the hyperbolic fund-raising appeals, and the fact that, though the center claimed to be effective in fighting extremism, ‘hate’ always continued to be on the rise, more dangerous than ever, with each year’s report on hate groups.”

“‘The S.P.L.C.—making hate pay,’ we’d say,” he wrote. “It was hard, for many of us, not to feel like we’d become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam.”

Moser’s revealing article has become even more important since he published it in 2019. Moser himself wrote for the Intelligence Project, the SPLC division that produces the “hate group” list. In fact, he also wrote an article about King back in 2005, in which one of Moser’s sources said the first version of King’s organization—known as American Resistance—was not a hate group.

The SPLC has since removed that article from its website at some point between 2007 and 2016, according to the internet archive, but users preserved the article through screenshots. King tipped off The Daily Signal to the article’s existence.

Moser’s article used King’s favorite term for his home state—”Georgiafornia”—in the headline, but didn’t introduce the immigration activist until page 3. Instead, his article focused on a 54-year-old legal immigrant from Guatemala who reportedly suffered a violent attack at the hands of high school boys who pretended to offer him an hourly job. The article then turned to a Ku Klux Klan rally against Hispanic immigration in 1998, and neo-Nazi rallies in 2001 and 2002.

After this set-up, Moser finally brought up King, whom he introduced as “an ex-Marine from Marietta, a white-flight suburb just outside of Atlanta.” He noted that King organized counter-protests combatting left-wing groups, and claimed King’s activism featured a “white-victimhood theme.” He also wrote about King’s decision in 2003 to report illegal immigrants to what was then the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, now known as ICE.

Perhaps most notably, Moser quoted Democratic state Sen. Sam Zamarripa, who sponsored a bill allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. King opposed the bill and publicly criticized the senator, who claims he received threats as a result.

“I think these people are operating just barely north of vigilante,” Zamarripa said. “They might not be traditional ‘hate’ groups, like the Klan, but that’s part of the appeal. They provide a safe, so-called respectable haven for hatred and bigotry.”

Related: Whistleblower: FBI Manipulated Jan. 6 Cases to Make Domestic Terrorism Appear Widespread

While Moser wrote that King worked with the Georgia Coalition for Immigration Reduction in the 1990s, King told The Daily Signal that he “was nearly unconscious politically in the 1990s and only heard about the very loosely organized Georgia Coalition for Immigration Reduction in 2003 after I had my first ever [letter to the editor] published in [the Atlanta Journal-Constitution].”

When King struggled to grow the American Resistance, he started The Dustin Inman Society instead, naming the group after a 16-year-old Georgia boy killed by an illegal immigrant in a car crash in 2001.

King’s initial lawsuit did not mention the article, and its later inclusion may strengthen his case even further.

Moser did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request to comment on whether he considered the “hate group” attack on King’s organization part of the SPLC’s “scam.” The SPLC also did not respond to a request for comment.

King’s organization is raising money for its legal defense on GoFundMe and the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo. While the SPLC has an endowment with more than $730 million, King had to mortgage his home to keep his organization afloat.

Syndicated with permission from The Daily Signal.

Pin It