Barack Obama’s legacy will be as the most lawless president in American history. His contempt for the Constitution in general, and its separation of powers doctrine in particular, drips from his lips like saliva from a rabid dog. Like most progressives, he sees the Constitution and Congress as impediments to the implementation of his brilliant policies.

One would be challenged to point out a single area of Obama’s policy that has been a success (or, at least, a success by the standards of the American people, as opposed to progressive zealots). But if one were to try to pinpoint the area where Obama’s efforts have been most disastrous, a strong case could be made for his Middle East policy, which has made the world a far more dangerous place.

He pulled out all American troops from Iraq, against the direct recommendation of his military advisers, and as a result the “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq” he left behind was soon overrun by the Islamic State — the most radical, violent terrorist group we’ve seen in our lifetimes. He essentially deposed Moammar Gadhafi of Libya who, though certainly an evil tyrant, was no threat to the U.S. In the ensuing power vacuum in Libya, chaos and bloodshed has been rampant. He claimed a “red line” in Syria past which dictator Bashar al-Assad must not pass, and when Assad soon crossed that red line by using chemical weapons, Obama backtracked and claimed that the red line was never his, but “the world’s.”

As a result of Obama’s mind-bogglingly feckless foreign policy, the Middle East burns and millions of Muslims are fleeing their native lands for the West. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Western nations to effectively differentiate between the true refugees, the economic migrants, and the Muslim jihadists who see an opportunity to infiltrate our nations as they plot to kill as many of us as possible.

Earlier this year, Obama mocked Republicans and other critics of his decision to import tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” without proper vetting, ignoring the fact that a policy of importing, en masse, groups of people from a culture completely anathema to our own — which doesn’t recognize the Western values of freedom of speech and religion, and a culture which subjugates women and kills or enslaves non-Muslims — would lead to disastrous results.

Obama insisted Republican intransigence on the issue showed they are on the wrong “side of history,” as if history were linear and anthropomorphic, with an innate morality determined by leftists. It is not. There is no wrong side or right side of history, there are simply people making moral and immoral choices, and our day is no different.

Obama claims German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on the “right side of history” because she defied the will of her countrymen and opened Germany’s borders to throngs of Muslims fleeing from their native countries. Now, certainly, not every Muslim refugee or migrant is a terrorist, nor even a majority. But as Merkel discovered, when hundreds of German women were raped or sexually assaulted by roving gangs of Muslim men, even non-jihadi Muslims can cause great suffering in Western lands. Far from praising her, Germans angrily turned on Merkel for the suffering she inflicted on them.

And that brings us back to Obama, who is doubling down on his Syrian “refugee” policy despite proof in Paris and Brussels of how dangerous that policy truly is. Obama has already committed to bringing in 10,000 Syrians this year alone, a number poised to jump to 25,000 next year. But even that is not enough for Obama.

As reported earlier this week, it appears that the Obama White House and the United Nations are in collusion to violate U.S. laws and bypass Congress in order to bring even more Syrians into our country by, among other things, cutting corners in the “laborious, time-consuming” process of vetting refugees. Keep in mind that this “laborious” process is what Obama pointed to as evidence that Americans had nothing to fear from the importation of waves of Syrian Muslims, yet it was this very lack of a vetting process that led directly to the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino and Paris this year.

Obama has already slashed the screening time for Muslim refugees in Jordan to just three months, down from 18-24 months, and other avenues Obama is considering to bypass the normal process include “easing family reunification rules, increasing scholarships and student visas for Syrians, remove administrative barriers (like security checks?) for refugee admissions, new "labor mobility” arrangements (work visas), among other stratagems.“ Since Obama has reneged on his promise of "no boots on the ground” by sending U.S. troops to Syria, maybe he is just trying to bring more Syrians here than he is sending Americans there.

National Review’s Jeremy Carl perfectly captures the hypocrisy and the lunacy of Obama’s position regarding Muslim “refugees,” noting, “Letting your country be overrun by an uncontrolled migration of more than one million unvetted foreigners from a profoundly different culture, who profess a religion with large elements that are hostile to Western freedoms — and then forcing your citizens to pay for it. That is ‘uniting.’ Demanding that your country exercise its sovereignty, enforce its border regulations, and pursue the interests of its own citizens first — that’s ‘dividing.’”

Pope Francis likewise lectured Western nations over their hesitance to bring throngs of Muslims within their borders, yet he only took two families into Vatican City. With such vast wealth and resources at his disposal, one would think he could have done more. Maybe before Obama lectures us again he should take in a dozen or so Muslim men, chosen at random, to live with him and his family in the White House. And like the rest of us, he should do so without Secret Service protection.