Carolyn:

You are right, both sentences are awkward. Moreover, both are factually wrong.

From a grammatical standpoint, I'd say scrap them both and start over. This would be better:

"That I write books is proof I am an entrepreneur."

But the problem is not grammatical. Merriam-Webster defines an entrepreneur as "one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise."

Merely writing a book is none of that.

Ængelfolc:

This site concerns itself with English, which is a living language, and a real one. Anglish is imaginary, like Esperanto or Atlantean (or Antlantish?). Have you an issue that is relevant to today?

I am not bothered by "on tomorrow." Its meaning is clear—as clear as "on Tuesday." It's the same construction. I hear it rarely, I admit. But really, haven't you— Tom, and Millie and all you others—something better to vex over?

The answer to your question is yes and no. There are instances where "I have" and I have got" mean the same thing. For example: I have/got to go. In other cases there is a slight distinction: I have a rash versus I have got a rash. There is a slight change in tense, but not an exact one.

The word "got" has a bad rep. It should not. Use it.

Willie Mead:

I’m more bothered by the phrase “black-educated” than I ever could be by “on tomorrow.”

I think "gift" as a verb is a vogue word that will die under its own weight. I hope. Similarly, we hear "plating" used to describe the arrangement of food on a dish, but mainly on cooking programs. Nobody says "plate me more potatoes, Ma" without being smacked.
(One hopes.)

"Gift" as a verb is awkward: "Friends, Romans, Countrymen—gift me your ears." I don't think so.

This usage will either expire or flourish, inane or not. You are not required to use it.

Shawn:

Have you ever been in Boston? It it's a mostly blue-collar town, like most of America. If do you visit, Shawn, visit Southie. And say your piece—you may just get educated.

And by "out familiarity" I clearly meant "our familiarity." Ain't typing the Dickens?

The words "everyone" and "everybody" are not entirely interchangeable. For example, the phrase "God bless us, everyone" is generally taken to mean "God bless us all," while the phrase "God bless us, everybody" might be taken to mean "hey y'all, God bless us." That we understand the first phrase in one particular way only has more to do with out familiarity with Dickens than with word definitions.

But I disagree with RushanFrass who says, " 'Everyone’ is used in the passive voice while ‘everybody’ is used in the active voice…" (I also object to the casual use of the stray ellipsis, but let it pass.)

Bryan Garner says this:

"The point about the passive voice is that the subject of the verb doesn't perform the action of the verb. Instead you back into the sentence:

Passive: The deadline was missed by the applicant.
Active: The applicant missed the deadline."

Substitute "the applicant" with either "everyone" or "everybody." Both sentences are clear and grammatical; there is no difference in meaning.

The distinction between "everyone" and "everybody" is not passive versus active voice. It is a matter of an author's personal preference.

The answer is: "a quarter of a percent."

The problem is that only the small percentage of the population that understand percentages understands you. Say "nearly none" or "almost no," depending on circumstances.

You will get away with it .25% of the time. (Just a guess.)