That's way too much of a mouthful to address all at once. First of all, you (and Mr. Pole), not I, insisted on using the terms "capitalists" and "laborers". I referred to them only as a citation. I personally think they are meaningless as functional descriptions. That is why I point to the fact that laborers/workers/whatever you wish to call them - are, in fact, capital owners and corporate stakeholders, and in very large numbers today.
That said, you are accusing (by choice of epithet) some persons who manage corporations of disloyalty. It is demonstrably true that some people value their personal monetary gains over the security of the country that protects their right to seek those rewards. George Soros comes to mind.
If the behavior of such persons can reasonably be shown to result in harm to their country, I will wholeheartedly support their prosecution under law. Why? Because the necessary precondition for economic freedom is physical safety- and that is the first priority of any government - to secure its citizens' rights against the threat or use of force.
However, just because many corporations are "transnational" in nature does not convict them or their employees of such behavior. Trade is desirable and necessary. Yet, if you choose to trade with pirates or thieves, you may soon find yourself adopting their methods and values. It's not a perfect system -and never will be. I do appreciate your concern for the loyalties held by some actors - and regardless of what you may have decided about me, I truly share your concern. What I am saying to you is that if you are serious, you need to limit your criticism to those who deserve it, as opposed to painting darkly with such a broad brush.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson, God love him, has more in common with modern liberals than modern conservatives. I think that time has proven that the Federalists (initially Hamilton and Madison) had better intellectual arguments than did the Democrat-Republicans. And the Know Nothings are dead - except of course, for Pat Buchanan.
Our national Trade Policy is inherently broad in scope, and it requires an equally broad brush to highlight those aspects that are detrimental to average Americans.