Correct. It simply provides context. The article should be judged on its own merits, but it's important to know when a given source leans one way or another. Especially when the organization uses ostensibly general/objective words in its name (see: Center for Immigration Studies).
Yes, but I suppose it's a matter of expectation. When I read NYT or WSJ or Slate or National Review I will get a fairly consistent message.
We don't see a lot of extreme partisan publications linked in HN, probably for good reason. Just wanted to note that although The Hill is not on the MSNBC/Fox spectrum, its editorial content may well be.
One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.
Perhaps it's worth talking to a therapist to examine your relationship with your family?
No matter what the legal situation is, emotionally this is your company as well, and I can't imagine how hard it must be to stop working there.
Talking with an objective outsider might give you some perspective on how best to set boundaries, to be involved but still respected and properly valued for your work.
Although "snake" is a strong word, it may be apt -- it does seem that your father continues to use your emotional attachment to the company as a bargaining chip against you.
