A point oft-made by conservatives since 9/11: Why should westerners agree to import an illiberal culture’s values if that culture won’t accept our liberal exports? Why let a thousand mosques bloom in Europe if Saudi Arabia won’t let one church be built? It’s hard to fight a battle of ideas when one side gets to censor the other. Gotta say, I did not wake up this morning expecting to hear that sentiment coming out of the mouth of a former Democratic president (and future First Gentleman) while, somewhere around the world, the leader of the Catholic Church is basically co-signing Obama’s statement that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

That comes at around 2:45. En route he says, as all western pols do and must nowadays, that religion is merely a pretext for jihadism, not the cause. Why other religions aren’t as frequently exploited by impoverished cultures to terrorize cartoonists is unclear, but some people no longer have time to ponder the root causes:

The European Jewish Association (EJA), which represents Jewish communities across Europe, says that gun license laws must be altered following a string of deadly attacks on Jews in France and other European countries, where anti-Semitism has been growing at an alarming rate… “The Paris attacks, as well as the many challenges and threats which have been presented to the European Jewish community in recent years, have revealed the urgent need to stop talking and start acting,” Margolin writes. “We hereby ask that gun licensing laws are reviewed with immediate effect to allow designated people in the Jewish communities and institutions to own weapons for the essential protection of their communities, as well as receiving the necessary training to protect their members from potential terror attacks.”

Clinton wants moderate Muslim leaders to speak up more against terrorism, as if jihadis are somehow unaware of or underexposed to less austere models of Islam. What if they aren’t? What if they prefer Salafism because they think it’s more authentic or find comfort in its totalitarianism? The Kouachi boys grew up in one of the most cosmopolitan cities on Earth, in the west’s most fiercely secular country. I’m sure they got plenty of lessons about nonviolence and free speech along the way on their long road to Charlie Hebdo HQ. They ended up seeking out Anwar al-Awlaki instead. That is to say, for some Muslims, Salafism actually is winning a battle of ideas. How come?