It is becoming increasingly clear that the upcoming midterm elections for the U.S. House and Senate, along with a number of governors’ races, are going to be far more important than most elections.

President Obama has made it clear he intends to use every possible means to bring about the “fundamental changes” in this country he pledged to make if elected to the presidency.

He has said he will try to work with members of Congress to hammer out his legislative agenda, but if he can’t get the action he wants, he will use his executive powers to make the changes he wants — changes and policies that fit into his grand plan for this country.

Past presidents have used executive powers, but not to reverse laws, violate Senate or House rules and perhaps violate the Constitution.

Regardless of the makeup of the next Congress, Obama could, and probably will, use his executive powers to try to do an end run around Congress and impose his will on the public. This is what he has been doing with the Democratic-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House.

Obama’s critics can complain about the president’s actions, his false or phony pledges, his double talk and deliberate misleading of the public relative to his signature legislation, the Obama health care plan.

But, so far, these critics have been unable to do much of anything other than talk about the situation. Little effective action has been taken to stop the president from imposing his dreams and changes on the American public, regardless of what those in Congress wish or what the Constitution may say.

It’s a dangerous situation and could set a precedent for future presidents if the public and Congress or the Supreme Court cannot, or will not, say the president has exceeded the powers of his office — or the laws of the land.

It is interesting to watch numerous Democratic Senate and House hopefuls and gubernatorial candidates try to distance themselves from the president and Obamacare. Also, it is interesting to note how, by executive action, Obama has pushed back various original deadlines and penalties in his health care law to dates that would come after this November’s elections or even after the 2016 presidential election.

Democratic candidates, many of whom were hard-core supporters of Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections, now are trying to use various smokescreens to distance themselves from the president. The truth is, as has been shown in past elections, a candidate seeking office often has no hesitance in making voter-friendly pledges only to ignore these pledges once he is voted into office. Obama himself offers a good example.

Democrats seeking congressional seats or governorships now can claim they are not locked into and supportive of Obama’s plans, but until polls showed the president losing public approval, they were eager to use Obama’s coattails to try to get elected.

They want access to his campaign warchest and strategy, but they will try to convince the public they are not an automatic “yes” vote for anything Obama may wish. They want and need Obama’s vast campaign and demographic information, which is the most in-depth source of voter information from previous state and national political efforts and current measurements of the public’s likes and dislikes.

If Democrats are able to hold onto the Senate and strengthen their position in the House — or possibly beat the odds and win control of the House — there will be no stopping the “fundamental changes” Obama is committed to carrying out.

This is why the upcoming November elections are so important — to those who want to continue the fundamental change and the drift to socialism and a “nanny state,” as well as to those who oppose greater government control of the lives of all Americans, the loss of freedoms and a weaker, less prestigious nation.

All elections are important, but there are growing reasons that the upcoming November congressional and gubernatorial elections may be among the most important ever to the future direction of this country. Both sides, and the country, have an enormous stake in the election outcome.