Questions (I feel) the Next Right has to address

When and where should we limit freedom? Do you think that the US court system is set up as a fair way to try any person, or only American citizens? Why is it necessary to limit freedom in some cases (FISA, anti gay marriage/civil rights legislature) and not others (gun licenses, financial regulations)?

I am more libertarian than most of my colleagues so I will say that we should be very, very hesitant to limit any citizen's freedom.  Noncitizens, however, are a different story.  Not that we should be cruel, but that we should recognize that noncitizens aren't entitled to the same protections as the US Constitution and so they are not necessarily owed every legal formality that citizens are owed.  Such as, with the issue of trying detainees in American courts.  They are not US citizens.  They were captured in time of war 'on the battlefield', insofar as one exists in the GWoT.  So IMO the conservative solution for handling terrorist detainees is to treat them in accordance with military procedures that we would normally use in times of war, i.e., military tribunals.  I don't agree that they should have habeas corpus rights.  Does this give us free license to do whatever we want?  No.

I personally don't have a big problem with gay marriage.

What programs should be cut first in order to reduce spending?

At the federal level, first: all earmarks must go, period, end of story.  Second: I think every program whose goal is most closely associated with being a state/local issue should be cut.  This means things like social welfare, education, roads (except for interstate highways), law enforcement (except for enforcement of purely federal laws), etc.  States are free to pick up these duties, which are IMO really their responsibilities anyway insofar as government ought to have a role in these areas.  Third: I would also cut back on defense spending as a part of a broader reorientation of our military objectives towards narrowly defined strategic goals.

What is an acceptable size for our national defense funding? Where is the point where we would consider it too large?

What should be the military's primary focus in the years to come? Should they change over to a pseudo-police-keeping force, holding and clearing and winning hearts and minds, as is necessary in places like Iraq? Or should they maintain the classic idea of a war-fighting military (ie, bomb and get out of there)?

These two questions are of course closely related.  For better or for worse, the US has become the global police force.  We can either embrace this role, fight against it, or something in between.  As I am more or less an anarchist when it comes to international relations, I think the US should only use its 'police power' when (a) our vital strategic interests, narrowly construed, are threatened; or (b) our principles are so offended that to stand by and do nothing would be a moral crime.  Now I personally have a pretty high standard for what constitutes a 'moral crime' on an international scale, primarily because I'm a cynic.  So your typical warlord-rampaging-through-villages-in-Nowherestan doesn't cut it in my book.  So this leaves a substantial grey area, but as long as we are debating in the zones of this sort of grey area instead of attempting to impose some sort of American-dominated world order, I'm okay with it.

What should be done about illegal immigration? Should we take a hard anti-illegal immigration stance and promote laws that punish business for hiring undocumented workers, and try to round up illegal immigrants? Or should we try to provide a path to citizenship instead? In the same vein, should we allow more or less legal immigration than we do now?

We should absolutely prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants.  It's already a crime to do so anyway, so to advocate for it is nothing more than advocating for the rule of law.  I'm not in favor of "rounding up all the illegals" as some of the zealous Tancredo-ites would like to do.  But IMO it's not necessary to send ICE squads into the barrios of East LA; instead, let's simply recognize what it means to be a citizen, and organize our society accordingly.  For instance, to be a citizen means that you are fully protected under our laws.  If you're not a citizen, you don't have the same level of protection.  That doesn't mean you're completely unprotected; it just means that you must necessarily operate under a different set of rules.  By definition, these rules aren't as good of a deal as the rules that the citizens get to live by.  So we naturally create a stronger and stronger incentive for illegal immigrants to "come out of the shadows" and become citizens.  Yes I think we should expand legal immigration, and vastly streamline the process.

Finally, should the Right reject elitism, embrace it, or perform some balancing act?

This seems like a curious question to me.  Could you elaborate please?

Thanks for the questions.