Author reveals the one alarming stat that shows US Christians are in trouble

Is America a Christian nation? The numbers don’t look good.

Glenn and Stu were stunned on today’s show to hear about American Christians by the numbers from Jonathan Bock, co-author of “The Way Back: How Christians Blew Our Credibility and How We Get It Back.”

Bock and co-author Phil Cooke looked at statistics from Gallup, the Pew Research Center and LifeWay to get the data on how many so-called Christians are living out their faith. Did you know that 40 percent of Christians who go to church “rarely or never” open their Bible?

“We were absolutely shocked,” Bock said. “All of the things that non-Christians are saying about us, that we’re hypocritical … it’s true.”

Here are some of the numbers he cited on today’s show:

  • While 70 to 80 percent of Americans call themselves Christians, just 20 percent go to church.
  • That 20 percent counts people as “regular” church attendees if they go just 19 times a year.
  • 37 percent of Christians who go to church don’t think prayer is essential.
  • Of the 20 percent who attend church, only 10 percent tithe a tenth of their income.

What do you think? Are we still a Christian nation? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, and in that spirit of asking these -- these questions, you know, one of them is -- there was no absolute anymore.

Nothing is known anymore.

There is no higher reason for being. I was at Silicon Valley, and I was listening to a -- I was listening to one of the venture capitalists. And he was talking about the future. And, I mean, he is Facebook, Twitter, everything. Biggest venture capitalist guy in the world.

And he said, you know, I have to tell you, the Christians and people of deep faith have a leg up on the rest of us.

Well, how do you mean? He said, because jobs are going to become so scarce. Life is going to become so easy, if we're right about technology, and if we survive this turnover, that most people get their meaning out of what they do. And he said, people of real faith get their meaning out of service for others. They find their meaning outside of themselves.

That's really important. And I think that's what's happening to our kids. We've lost meaning. But what does it mean to be a Christian anymore?

What does it mean? It's -- it's like it's not even living in the world we're in. Not that it should be of the world, but it has to be in the world.

So there's a new book out, called The Way Back. Now, this is written by two people, Eric Metaxas turned me onto this. Phil Cook and Jonathan Bock. Now, Jonathan Bock is the founder of Grace Hill Media, which has done every movie that you can imagine that you might like, that has a good message to it. It was -- it's the company that did Chronicles of Narnia. The Lord of the Rings. What else?

Blind Side. So here is a guy who is in the media. He works in Hollywood, and yet he says, Christians have lost their credibility. And here's the way back. We want we wanted to get him on now. Jonathan Bock. How are you, Jonathan?

JONATHAN: Brother, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: I'm very good.

JONATHAN: I'm actually happy to hear that the (inaudible) has moved to Saint George, Utah.

GLENN: Yeah. Isn't that bizarre?

JONATHAN: That's a real retreat.

GLENN: Yeah, it is. Yeah, it is.

Okay. So, Jonathan, it's interesting that, you know, being Hollywood people, that you see this.

And you're not -- I shouldn't say you're Hollywood. I mean, you're a -- you're a believer. But you're seeing this. And you're -- you're largely responsible for the renaissance of spiritual and faith-based films in Hollywood proper. What is it that we are missing? How -- what do you mean, that Christianity has lost its way?

JONATHAN: Yeah. Well, I sit and have for the better part of 20 years on a funny fence, where I market mainstream films and television, to the Christian community, to the faith community around the country. And even now around the globe. But I'm also a practicing, believing Christian. And so it's -- it's an odd little place to perch and sit. And so I get to see, maybe into both sides of things in a way that somebody sitting on one side of the fence doesn't necessarily get to.

And, look, I don't think I'm saying anything extraordinary here, to say that over the last several decades, we've seen a real failure on the part of the Christian community to influence culture.

We've just seen it ebbing away kind of day after day after day.

And we're to the place now, where people can be openly hostile. And are openly hostile to -- to the Christian community and to Christian values. I mean, for example, Bernie Sanders, like, 18 months ago, said that Christians shouldn't be in a position of any kind of authority in politics. You know, it's things like that, like, what is going on, right?

And so my concern is as simple as this, is that there is a disconnect between how Christians perceive themselves and how non-Christians and the world actually sees us. And so a very simple example of that is the fruits of the spirit, which Christians are supposed to be known for. You know, you know the list: Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness. You know the list.

Tell me which of those words, non-Christians use to describe us.

GLENN: None of those.

STU: Wow.

JONATHAN: Right. That's a real problem, right? It's a PR problem.

GLENN: Yeah.

JONATHAN: You know, it's how we're viewing ourselves and how they're viewing us, are just -- just not --

GLENN: Okay. So help me out. Is this a -- I know perception is reality. So you have to deal with the reality that you're handed. But is that perception coming from -- is that because there's this movement on the left to crush Christianity, or is it, well, Christians aren't living what they preach, or a combination of both?

JONATHAN: Yeah. Well, as a PR and marketing guy, and my cowriter Phil Cook, is also a media expert. He actually works on the Christian side of things. I like to say that Phil helps Christian television suck less.

(laughter)

And he's been doing that for, you know, the better part of 30 years.

We came at this -- you know, we've been friends for a long time. And we talk about this kind of constantly around fire pits and conversation.

And, you know, we come at this as PR, marketing guys. So we viewed this initially as Christianity has a PR problem. So every marketing problem can be solved by better marketing. So if your house is small. Don't call it small, call it cozy, right?

And so that's how -- where we started. We started at a place of, great. How do we fix this PR problem? Let's use our expertise to do that. But the more that we dug into it, the more we wrote the book, it just didn't feel like we were really capturing what the real essential problem was.

So we decided to go back and look at our community, the Christian community and just look at behaviors, and where the Christian community is right now.

So, for example, on the movie side of things, if -- if you do research, you ask people, hey, do you like movies? Everybody likes movies. It's like 99 percent of the country says, yes, I like movies. Okay? Well, as marketers, we're not interested in those people. We're actually interested in the people who show up and actually go to movies and plunk down their money once a month and go to movies, or who are on Netflix. You want people who are actively involved.

So we went to all of the best researchers out there, bar none. Gala, the Pew, Lifeway Research, to dig into the actual stats of what's going on in the Christian community behaviorally.

And I have to say, we were absolutely shocked. So depending on the researcher you talk to and the question that gets asked, essentially, somewhere between 70 to 80 percent of this country classifies themselves as a Christian. Okay?

Then you start to look at -- we just decided to just look at basic behaviors. You know, where do you spend your time, where do you spend your money? And what are the markers that you would say, okay. Yeah, that's definitely what Christians should be -- they should be going to church, right? You would assume that Christians would go to church.

We looked at prayer. We looked at tithing. And we looked at Bible reading. And we were shocked. So, for example, if 70 to 80 percent of the country claims to be Christian, how many people are showing up on a weekly basis to church? It is 20 percent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Hmm.

JONATHAN: Right. And the new rule of thumb, with churches, with pastors, is you are now a regular at church, if you're showing up three out of every eight Sundays, or 19 whole times a year.

GLENN: Holy cow. That makes you a regular congregant.

STU: How many years again was it?

GLENN: Nineteen.

JONATHAN: Nineteen. You're a regular if you show up 19.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: It's like my gym attendance.

JONATHAN: Exactly. And you can see what difference that's making.

STU: Yeah, I know. I look great.

GLENN: Hey, wait a minute.

STU: Wait a minute.

(chuckling)

JONATHAN: So then we looked at --

STU: You didn't laugh. You didn't laugh.

Are you actually just calling me fat? I don't understand what just happened.

GLENN: Hey, he's a Christian. He can get away with that. He loves you.

STU: Okay.

JONATHAN: I speak truth, man. I speak truth.

GLENN: That's right.

JONATHAN: So then we looked at, prayer. Okay? And what we found is that 63 percent of Christians say prayer is essential, which sounds like a great number. Oh. Okay. That's a good number. Except the corollary to that is 37 percent of people who go to church don't think prayer is essential.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. 37 percent, what?

JONATHAN: 37 percent of Christians who go to church do not think prayer is essential.

STU: What. How is that possible?

GLENN: How is that -- I mean, it's the Lord's Prayer. He thought it was pretty -- how is that possible? Okay?

JONATHAN: Well, this is where we are in the world.

So here's the really shocker, which is Bible reading. So Lifeway Research. This is Southern Baptist. This is not -- I mean, they want this to be a good number. But their researchers, what they found is that of church-attending Christians. We're talking about that 20 percent, right? We're talking about essentially the regulars that show up. Forty percent of them rarely or never open the Bible. So, again, we're not talking about Christmas and Easter Christians. We're talking about people who are actually showing up in the pews on a regular basis.

GLENN: Nineteen times.

JONATHAN: Right. Well, 40 percent of them are never cracking the Bible at all. Okay?

And then, of course, tithing, you would assume it's terrible. And it is terrible. Of those, 10 percent -- excuse me, of those 20 percent who are showing up on a regular basis, only 10 percent of them are giving 10 percent.

GLENN: Well, at least they're consistent. It's a 10 percent rule.

STU: Wow.

JONATHAN: But you look at those numbers and you start to realize, oh, my gosh, all of the things that non-Christians are saying about us, that we're hypocritical, that we're negative, all those things -- that whole list, it's true.

GLENN: Okay.

JONATHAN: It's true.

GLENN: So hang on, Jonathan, because we want to continue the -- continue the conversation. So how does that change us? And then, also what do we do? Because I think people feel this. They just know, Christianity is on the ropes. It's declining everywhere. And it's on the ropes. And it's because perhaps we're not living it.

So we'll go there here in a second. And how do we make -- how does it become relevant to people?

GLENN: We are talking to the author of a new book, Jonathan Bock, and Phil Cook, have written The Way Back: How Christians Blew Our Credibility, and How We Can Get It Back.

He is a marketer. And started looking at the problems of Christianity. And saying, well, we just have a marketing problem. He said, no, after doing research, no, we actually have real fundamental problems. And, you know, people are not viewing Christians as we view ourselves.

STU: Yeah. He brought up a list -- you know, positive virtues that you must associate with Christianity to keep it as secular as possible.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And it was --

GLENN: Nobody associates any of those words with Christians.

STU: Right. And part of me believes that because there's been, A, kind of a negative -- there is a PR problem. I think that is part of it.

GLENN: Yes, I do too.

STU: But also, you know, maybe we're not living the lives we're supposed to live. I'd love to see what people do associate with Christianity.

GLENN: So we'll get into that. And -- and how much of this is -- is -- you know, he mentioned that he -- a lot of the research they did, one of the big research firms is Barna. And I've seen the Barna research on Christians. There's no difference between Christians and non-Christians in divorce, pornography, you know, lying, cheating, stealing. There's no difference. We are not different because of our faith. And I think that's why a lot of people say, you know, you're just a bunch of talk. You're just a bunch of hypocrites. Oh, you preach goody-goody. But there is no difference in studies done by religious pollsters. There's no difference between us. That's a problem. So how do we get it back? Continue in just a second. The name of the book is The Way Back.

GLENN: There is a new book out, it is called the way back. How Christians blew our credibility, and how we get it back.

Jonathan Bock is one of the coauthors. He is with us now.

He is in the film-promoting industry. He is a Christian. And his coauthor is a Christian. And they thought that this was a PR problem. And as they looked into research, they realized, no, it's not a PR problem, alone. There is a problem in Christianity, and he just addressed, you know, people who say they go to church, that's only about 20 percent of the population that says they're Christian. Twenty percent of those go to church on a regular basis. And that means 19 times a year. 63 percent of Christians say prayer is important. But 37 percent of Christians say, no, it's not. And only 40 percent -- or, sorry, 40 percent of Christians rarely or never read the Bible.

STU: So going over some of the positive terms that are not associated with Christianity, apparently, for good reason. In some ways, Jonathan. But what do people think of when they think of Christians?

JONATHAN: Well, I mean, we've all heard the list, right? We've all heard the -- the terrible adjectives that are used. But what we discovered with -- when we started to look into this research is that, you know, the fact that Christian is now essentially synonymous with hypocrite, is not a PR problem. What it is, is it's a sales force problem. It's on us. Because we're just not living the life. We have essentially become the fat guy on the gym who is lecturing other people about good health.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Hmm.

JONATHAN: And so researchers know that when conversion happens -- and it doesn't matter -- we're not talking only about religion. It could be anything. Good health. Anything. It's because you see someone else and you want to be like them.

GLENN: Yeah.

JONATHAN: So when you have 80 percent of the country saying they're Christian, but only 20 percent showing up, you know, you look at that and say, well, who wants to be part of that group? Who wants to be part of that? And it's a little bit like if you went to -- for a meeting at Coca-Cola. And three-quarters of the people around the table are drinking Pepsi. Like, what would you think about it?

GLENN: Right. I will tell you -- I have a problem, but even in my own church, but all churches. You know, they talk about baptisms and getting people in the faith. And I just keep -- it drives me nuts. Because I just feel like, yeah, okay. That's important. But love people. Love people.

And they will just come themselves. Jesus didn't have to say, get into the water. Get into the water. He loved people, and that's what turned their life.

They saw it and they wanted that fruit. And I don't know what our fruit is anymore.

JONATHAN: Exactly. Exactly. And so we looked at this and said, okay. Well, here's the symptoms, right? But what's the real cause of this? And it really also shocked us is essentially what we determined is that when -- you know, when you talk about idol worship, that -- that sounds like an Israelite problem. Right?

GLENN: Right. Right.

JONATHAN: A long time ago kind of problem. Oh, those silly Israelites. The second Moses is away, they're making a golden calf. We don't do that if our pastor goes on vacation. We don't make a golden calf.

GLENN: Speak for your church. Should have seen what happened to our church last week.

JONATHAN: But what we feel is that a lot of Christians out there -- a lot of people calling themselves Christians are actually the most sophisticated idol makers in the history of humanity. Because essentially what they've done is they've created a God that looks like God. That has the veneer of God. But it's God who doesn't mind that I'm only going to church 19 times a year. And fine with me not tithing and reading the Bible. You know, is cool with us divorcing, as you brought up. Divorcing at this exact same rate as everybody else. Who demands no obedience from us all. And it's essentially, we have created a God, who -- who conforms to our view of the world, as opposed to the other way around.

That's idol worship. And I think that's what's going on here. And what you realize is the greatest threat facing American Christianity in 2018, is not radical Islam or the rise of secularism or prayer in schools or gay marriage as a whole. The greatest threat to American Christianity in 2018 is American Christians.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: That's a powerful statement. I will tell you this, I had to write something this week, this last weekend, for church. And so I was doing some study on -- on unconditional love, and how God's love is unconditional. And started doing some research and found that was not part of the Christian vernacular until the 1960s. God's love is not unconditional. He has divine love. He loves all of us, no matter what we've done, but it is also conditional. You -- you know, all of his promises are, if you do these things, then I will promise you these things.

That is the very definition. And it was put in there -- you know, the unconditional love really kind of entered our vernacular, because it was, you know, hey, you can just be a good person. You can sleep with people and whatever, and God doesn't matter. It does matter. It does matter.

JONATHAN: Yeah, well, and, you know, as you read the stories of Jesus, you know, he's got all the time in the world and all the love in the world for murderers and prostitutes and lepers and, you know, the list goes on and on and on. The folks he can't stand are the complacent.

GLENN: The hypocrites.

JONATHAN: The hypocrites.

GLENN: Yeah.

JONATHAN: You know, he has no patience for them. None.

GLENN: So what is the way back?

JONATHAN: Yeah, well, so we had to -- that's one of the things that we did. We said, well, how do we fix this? Right? Because a lot of people have accused us as having the spiritual gift of discouragement. So what do we do about this, and how do we fix this?

And so what we decided to do was just go back and say, well, how did the early church do this? Right? Essentially on the Mount of Olives, when Jesus disappeared in the sky, you know, the disciples were standing there. And as they're standing there, they have nothing. Okay? They have no political power. They have no money.

They have no influence. They have essentially no education. They have no plan. As a matter of fact, two angels had to show up and say, come on, fellows. Let's get to it. You know, it's time to go. So they had nothing. So how do they go from being a backwater cult, you know, in the far reaches of the Roman Empire to 200 years later, Christianity being one of the most influential forces in all of the western world. How did that happen? How did they go from nothing to that? In a relatively short period of time?

And it's really two things, what we came up with. First is, they were all in. I mean, these guys were 100 percent committed.

GLENN: Yeah.

JONATHAN: They were in it for sure. And that's the first thing. And the second thing is that they went about a process of deciding intentionally to astonish Roman culture. Roman culture -- let me give you an example of it. Roman culture was a culture of death, really. I mean, militarism was really strong. Infanticide was a huge problem, in the early church. I mean, excuse me -- in Roman culture. Right? They -- they didn't really name their children for ten days after they were born. Because they were still deciding if they wanted to keep this or not, if it was a girl. Or too many mouths to feed. They would just expose the child. They would just leave it by the side of the road or out in the trash or put it in a field.

GLENN: They put them literally in garbage barges.

STU: Ugh.

JONATHAN: Yep. Just garbage. It was a piece of garbage. So the early church who believed in life and believed that everyone was sacred, started picking up these children and raising them as their own. And the idea of that so astonished the Roman culture. They didn't know what to do with it. Who are these people, and what are they doing? And how are they doing it?

And so, we looked at that and said, all right. Well, what are the ways that we can astonish culture again? And if you go back again to the early church -- think of the things that they created. Hospitals and orphanages and universities. I mean, the list goes on and on of things that were so extraordinary, that culture decided, hey, we need one of those. We want to be part of this.

And so what are the things -- I don't think a hospital or soup kitchen is really -- another one of those is going to astonish culture. But what are the things that we can do as a Christian community, both individually and corporately, that can astonish culture once again?

So as an example -- we have a bunch of examples in the book of those kinds of things that we can do. And I'll give you an example of one.

The foster care system is a disaster in this country. 450,000 kids living in the foster care system, essentially abandoned. They're abandoned children. That's what it comes down to. And we can look at that and go, oh, my gosh, that's an unbelievably huge number. What could I do where I'm sitting?

Well, there's actually a lot you can do. 450,000 doesn't sound so terrible when you realize there's 350,000 churches in this country. So if one family in one church, in every single church in the country, took in a foster -- an orphaned child into their family, and everybody else in that church supported them, we could wipe out the foster care system in this country in a year, just like that. That's the kind of thing that would astonish people and go, well, who does that? How did this happen? That's unbelievable. Because everybody knows this is a tremendous societal problem right now.

Foster kids have a 1 percent graduation rate from college.

GLENN: Wow.

JONATHAN: Within one year, 25 percent of them will be homeless, when they're finally emancipated. Seventy-five percent of girls who go through the foster care system are pregnant by 21.

STU: Seventy-five percent, wow.

JONATHAN: Seventy-five percent. So if we want to do something about it, we need to -- this is the kind of ways we can astonish culture, is by working together. But we have to be committed.

STU: That's amazing.

Now we're like, oh, I can't believe Chick-fil-A is closed on Sunday. Jeez, what are they doing? These basic steps now mesmerize us. That's not even close to what the plan was.

JONATHAN: And what's especially amazing about Chick-fil-A is that they make more money -- they're only open six days a week -- than other chains.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It works. Yeah. Yeah.

So, Jonathan, what about the -- instead of the grand plan -- which I love -- I love that about, you know -- you know, the foster care idea.

Too many of us are just not doing it. I mean, we're just not living it. We're not -- we're no different than the rest of society.

JONATHAN: Yes.

GLENN: So, I mean, how much of a role do we as individuals play? Because if our churches can say, hey, we're going to do this. But unless we -- unless we reduce our divorce rate, you know, our pornography usage, our drug usage, our lying, our cheating, whatever. Unless we start to moving those numbers, we're not a unique or peculiar people at all.

JONATHAN: No. Right. And it's going to start with ourselves. Right? Because we have to look at ourselves and decide, what do I want to be? Right? Do I want to be this complacent person, or do I want to essentially be a Navy SEAL for the Lord? Right? Like all in. And then the church you go to is important. Is your church pushing you hard like a trainer for your soul, into a deeper and more profound relationship with Jesus? Or is it like a rose-scented convalescent hospital, which is keeping you warm, dry, and comfortable, right? What's your faith? Is your faith an active, all-in faith? Or is it a 401(k) faith, where you're just putting a little bit away and hoping you have enough for the very end.

GLENN: So great. Jonathan Bock. Thank you. The name of the book is The Way Back: How Christians Blew Our Credibility and How We Get It Back.

Thanks, Jonathan.

JONATHAN: Thank you.

GLENN: I have to tell you, the book has a companion devotional on YouVersion. It has hit 800,000 downloads in the first ten days.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. So it's -- this is gaining traction, and that's a good thing. The way back. Available everywhere.

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.