OPINION

Appellant Kamal Kama Roy a/k/a Jungle Democracy and other aliases, filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He was granted leave to proceed informa pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Roy filed his lawsuit against numerous defendants, including God, the United States of America, United States President George Bush, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John G. Roberts, the Prime Minister of India, agencies and officials of the State of New York, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and The New York Times. Roy’s complaint consists of what appear to be excerpts of his previous lawsuits. 1 Among other things, the complaint contains references to discrimination, deprivation of government benefits, corruption, the loss of the power of God to the rulers of society, actions taken by President Bush, Roy’s exception to Chief Justice Roberts being named to the United States Supreme Court, and the government of India’s violation of civil rights concerning pension benefits. Roy sought “up to one-half billion dollars” in United States currency in damages. The District Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Roy appeals 2 and *909 has been granted leave to appeal informa pauperis.

The federal in forma pauperis statute permits an indigent litigant to appeal without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The statute protects against abuses of this privilege by allowing the appeals court to dismiss the appeal if it is frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). We may dismiss the appeal where the factual allegations are delusional, irrational, or wholly incredible. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728. Upon review of the record, we agree with the District Court’s assessment of the complaint and conclude that the appeal is “clearly baseless” under the Neitzke standard.

We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).