I almost never post these; replying to ignorant commentary on the internet is a minor hobby of mine, but this one was particularly cute, so..
My response, which I doubt the author will approve:
As you note, EO 13489 was an executive order by Obama. However, it doesn't do what you say it does (I encourage people to go to archives.gov to actually read it).
Every single other executive order you cite was done long before Obama took office, as should be very clear from the EO number being considerably lower. Executive Order 11001, for example, was signed in 1962, and is about how the secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare should handle emergencies. It was signed by JFK. Another one of these was signed by Richard Nixon.
So basically, you got your facts entirely wrong. You've misinterpreted many of these executive orders and only one of them has anything to do with Obama; the rest are all ancient. Check your facts better next time.
In general, if someone is citing specific legislation, bills, executive orders, you name it, if it seems even slightly fishy go check their facts. There are plenty of people who depend on you *not* checking your facts, and they often, as this guy did, get their facts significantly wrong. Want to look up an executive order? Try here; if you enter the EO number at the bottom you'll find an index (appropriate to the president who issued that EO) which will let you look up the particular wording, when it was signed, if it was withdrawn, and so on. It also helps to understand what executive orders actually are, so go look that up on Wikipedia.
Just a little bit more research would've saved this guy a post that he probably should be embarassed about.